Kenneth L. Kinsey — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)
941 linesMR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honor. The State calls Dr. Kenny Kinsey.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Dr. Kinsey.
The witness, KENNETH L. KINSEY, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: If you will have a seat and adjust that microphone for me. If you will state your name and spell your last name for the record.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Kenneth Lee Kinsey. K-i-n-s-e-y.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WILSON:
MR. WILSON: Welcome back, Dr. Kinsey, it feels like a year since you were here. You were qualified last week as an expert, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. WILSON: What I would like for you to do right now is just to remind the jury, give them a lit bit of background on your education, your work history, your credentials that made you qualified to be an expert witness.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I've got a degree from Clemson University. A Master's degree -- that's undergraduate. A Master's degree from Troy University. A Ph.D from Walden University. I've formally been certified by the International Association for Identification two different times for crime scene investigation and reconstruction. I've worked approximately 800 death scenes in my career. And I've handle and processed countless evidence and crime scenes in the crime scene-related disciplines. I have completed and passed proficiency in those disciplines as recommended by the International Association for Identification, which includes oral exams, research, technical work, and also I worked under a qualified examiner for a determinate amount of time. And I've been a police officer for approximately thirty years in various capacities.
MR. WILSON: And just to remind the jury, you were qualified as a forensic -- or a crime scene forensics expert in this particular case.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. WILSON: And real quick, what other types of qualifications as an expert do you possess?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I am also firearms instructor for handguns, shotguns -- they call them patrol rifles -- but that includes sub-guns, fully automatic and semiautomatic platforms. I have endorsements through the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. I'm also a SLED concealed weapons permit instructor. And I'm formally a law enforcement firearms instructor through the NRA.
MR. WILSON: Now, you've had an opportunity to do -- to review the case file for this particular case, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, I have.
MR. WILSON: And you have actually been out to the crime scene, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have.
MR. WILSON: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: I would like to show you what's been previously marked as State's Exhibit 526. Do you recognize this map?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WILSON: And what is it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a satellite map from the Moselle property.
MR. WILSON: I would like to offer this into evidence, I assume with no objection.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(MAP MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 526 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, we're going to keep our testimony today narrowly focused and tailored to the few witnesses that the defense put up this past week. Did you have the opportunity to observe one witness named Michael Sutton who was a forensic mechanical engineer for the defense?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. WILSON: Now, do you recall any of his conclusion, or what his main conclusion was regarding the size of the shooter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: And what was that conclusion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 5-foot-2 to 5-foot-4.
MR. WILSON: I would like now, Doug, if you would, I would like for you to publish or cut on Defense Exhibit 140, and go to page 49. Okay.
MR. WILSON: Now, what I want to do is -- we're going to get into this in just a moment, but they published this into evidence last week, and do you recognize these green lines coming out?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and what do those green lines represent?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Those green lines represent a predicted static angle or -- I don't know what you would call it, trajectory for possible shooters.
MR. WILSON: And, Doug, if you would go to page 74 of this presentation, please.
MR. WILSON: Do you recognize this photo on page 74 of the defense exhibit?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: And what is it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is Mr. Sutton pointing a pump action shotgun into the feed room at Moselle.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and did Mr. Sutton make a -- develop his conclusions as to the height of the shooter based on math that he did in this particular case?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He said it was trigonometry, but, yes, sir, he did.
MR. WILSON: Based on your many years of law enforcement experience, education, and training, what is your overall opinion on his conclusion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think his intentions are well, but I think his methods were flawed.
MR. WILSON: So, what I want to do is I want to go back, and there were three previous green -- angles that we just looked at on the previous slide, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: And then he also determined an angle here in this photo, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: And those are the angles that he used to determine the height of the shooter, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct. And, Mr. Wilson, I don't know the totality of what he considered, but that was one of the elements, one of the criteria he used.
MR. WILSON: Okay.
MR. WILSON: Just to refresh the jury's recollection. Doug, if you would go to page 4? It should be State's 62. It's a picture.
MR. WILSON: What is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is a picture of what's been described as a quail pen.
MR. WILSON: Go to page 5, please.
MR. WILSON: And what is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is a close up of that quail pen, and it has weathered cardboard on one end.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and that, for the record, is Exhibit 63 that that is a picture of. And go to page 6, which should be State's 64.
MR. WILSON: And what is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a close up of what appears to be a bullet defect, or bullet damage in that cardboard.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Now, they, they base their angles of -- at least two angles -- let's back up. There were two angles taken from this particular one bullet hole. Why is that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There were. I believe the original crime scene agent gave a possibility of two angles of the -- of the angle of impact in the cardboard.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and what are some things that someone can determine from examining a bullet hole in this cardboard?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the first thing is direction. It let's you know that you had one, or at least -- at least one projectile fired from that direction. It's a pretty good indicator for direction.
MR. WILSON: What's another thing that you can determine?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Sometimes you can determine the angle of impact and whether that bullet was affected before it struck that object. And what I mean is was it deflected by flesh, or did it hit its target, or is there an internal problem with the weapon that would cause that bullet to be off center.
MR. WILSON: Are you comfortable with the direction that was determined by Special Agent Worley in this particular photo?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm very confident of that direction.
MR. WILSON: Okay. The defense determined that there were two potential angles. How confident are you that the methodology used to determine those angles are accurate?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have zero confidence from this piece of evidence as far as establishing angles.
MR. WILSON: So, that's interesting. You feel good about the direction of the bullet going into the quail cage but you have a concern about the angle, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: Do you have a concern about the angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The angle of impact, yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. WILSON: What are two things that could affect the angle of impact on a surface like this cardboard?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: As I mentioned before, you could have -- that bullet could have hit an object, which we don't know, or it could be an internal problem with the firearm that causes it -- when you think about -- if I could explain?
MR. WILSON: Yes.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: When you think about a quarterback throwing a football, they spin that football and it makes it stable in flight. Well, a projectile coming out of the muzzle of a firearm, a single projectile firearm, works the same way. You've got little lands and grooves in that barrel, and as that propellent pushes that projectile down the barrel, it twists. And there's different twists depending on the firearm, but that twist is called rifling most commonly. That's what my grandfather called it, but it makes that bullet stable in flight. Anything that can throw that projectile off a bearing, whether it be striking something, or a firearm problem, may be fouling, too much lead in the barrel, it -- those kind of things will make that bullet off center. Now, it still may go the general direction, but the rotation of that projectile could be off just a little bit when it strikes a target.
MR. WILSON: So, a good analogy would be a lineman hitting his head on the football and making it go wobbly, but it keeps going, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That would work, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Don't lead the witness.
MR. WILSON: Doug, could you zoom in on this hole real quick?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, I would like to ask you to step down here, and for demonstrative purposes, I would like you to demonstrate how an angle of impact can be affected in cardboard with a dowel.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can I step down?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: Describe to the jury what you've done with this box.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I placed four strategic holes in this box representing a bullet defect in cardboard. As you probably saw in the photographs, as a crime scene investigator we use dowel rods to determine direction and angle of impact. Now, they can be as simple as a wooden dowel rod like you get at your hardware store, or they make some real complicated ones made out of fiberglass. If you can afford it, most agencies and most crime scene teams will use a fiberglass rod, but the wooden rod, as long as they're pretty straight and true, they work just the same. So, if this represents a projectile defect in cardboard -- and may I say weathered cardboard because this has been out there at least a year and a half since this incident took place. You place that dowel rod in that defect, and then you can get an approximate angle, or angle of impact on it, but you can definitely get a more confident direction if your shooter is over here and he's shooting this direction, or over here, or up or down. But it's not the end all, be all, and I can explain that to you also.
MR. WILSON: Okay. So, how could -- could you demonstrate how -- well, back up a second and step away so the jurors could see this photo, if you would. You saw the -- I might need you up here.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: You saw the defense expert's testimony, Mr. Sutton, I believe, last week describing this hole. Can you explain to them how he -- how he determined the angle of impact based on what he was observing at this bullet entry?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can, Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Please do so for the jury.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What Mr. Sutton did with geometry and trigonometry and a whole lot of tools, but basically a protractor, as we used when I testified previously, if you had a confident bullet defect, you can run a string and then put a level or a -- it's a type of protractor, it's a bullet angle finder, on top of that rod, and you can get a general angle of impact in a fixed object. However, this isn't a fixed object.
MR. WILSON: He referred to that little mark around 3:00. What did he call that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think he called it a bullet wash.
MR. WILSON: Could it be a bullet wipe?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Bullet wipe, yeah, something like -- it's not a term I use --
MR. WILSON: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- or that I'm familiar with.
MR. WILSON: And what was he assuming that bullet wipe was caused by based on the testimony you heard?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: From the angle. He --
MR. WILSON: The angle of what?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The angle of impact.
MR. WILSON: What else can cause that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: As we mentioned, striking a surface beforehand, fouling in the barrel, something internal. It just throws the bullet off course a little bit. It's not spinning the way it normally spins so when it strikes, it doesn't strike -- it doesn't enter the way it normally would, it wallers a little bit like that football we talked about.
MR. WILSON: What about the dowel rod?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the purpose of inserting a dowel rod is to try to get the best angle or best direction you can. And in a perfect world, the angle would be fairly competent, like another bullet defect we're going to talk about. Remember, this is weathered con -- weathered cardboard. So, once that examiner -- and these rods are not caliber specific either because a crime scene investigator or an examiner can't look at a bullet hole and guess what caliber it is. That's nonsense. So, you try to pick the one that fits the hole the best. And with some of the fancy kits you get a little shim kit with some little rubber garments that you can place in there and make it fit a little bit better. But more typically you just pick the dowel rod that's closest to the hole.
MR. WILSON: Could a dowel rod affect the angle of impact?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Upon me inserting this dowel rod, I can do damage to that bullet defect, but more importantly when I remove it, I can do that. And it's very deceptive damage. It's not intentional, but it can damage the angle of impact, especially in a soft, unreliable object like cardboard.
MR. WILSON: You can return to the stand, thank you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can demonstrate that, Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Please. Go ahead.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Oh, okay. What I'm saying, once a crime scene investigator gets what they need, they get their photographs, their measurements, give direction, so now this dowel rod is here. And none of us know this unless you've got a video of the examiner taking that dowel rod out, so we don't know what direction he or she might have pulled that dowel rod out. Because she's got her measurements, she or he is not considering someone coming behind them and measuring again for something in a piece of cardboard, and we're not talking about wood or sheetrock. We're talking about cardboard. If you pull it to the right, you cause that same bullet wipe that we've got in the photograph. Likewise, if I pull it to the left, now it looks like that projectile has entered from a left to right direction. And you can go on and up or down. That will influence the appearance of that -- of that bullet defect because you've got an object like cardboard, something that there's no confidence in.
MR. WILSON: Thank you. You can sit back down.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: So, do you recall when the defendant expert testified to the direction and angle of that particular angle of impact?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: And what was it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think 1 and 3 degrees.
MR. WILSON: Do you remember, like, was it left to right --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Going up.
MR. WILSON: -- or right to left?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Going up.
MR. WILSON: And from what way to what way? What direction to what direction?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Left to right -- or right to left. Yes, sir, right to left. I have to think about the quail pen in my head.
MR. WILSON: Are you confident that the direction was correct on this?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I have no reason not to believe the direction. I mean, that would have to be a huge defect hole for it to throw the direction off.
MR. WILSON: How confident are you in the angle of this?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have zero confidence in that angle, of the -- of the entry.
MR. WILSON: Doug, if you could go to page 21, which I believe is State's Exhibit -- a picture of State's Exhibit 38.
MR. WILSON: Can you describe for the jury what that is right there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Like the first defect, this is also a defect in a wooden -- it's been described as a dog house.
MR. WILSON: Now, you can also determine the angle of impact and the direction here, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can.
MR. WILSON: What degree of certainty do you have that they were right in the angle of impact and the direction in the dog house?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I place a lot more confidence in this angle because that wood is fixed. It will show a much truer projection of the angle of impact.
MR. WILSON: Can you -- hold on one second. How is this particular -- I think you've just described it, though. Real quick, how is the dog house different from the quail cage in determining the angle of impact?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the dog house, if you look at it, is at least a half inch to 3 quarters thick. So, like I said, you've got to stable, dependable bullet defect. The cardboard is two pieces of brown paper, with corrugated paper in between to cause -- you know, for strength purposes. But as I mentioned, not only is the cardboard, in my opinion, not a good substance to shoot into, it's also weathered, so that makes it even weaker.
MR. WILSON: Doug, can you go to page 42 on this exhibit?
MR. WILSON: All right. Can you -- it doesn't have an exhibit number at the top. This is page 42 on Defense Exhibit 40. Can you describe what this photo is?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. That is a computer animated drawing of some potential trajectories into that quail pen.
MR. WILSON: And the two gray boys here, what are they?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They are -- they are two figures that were placed in that CAD presentation to represent shooters.
MR. WILSON: Go to 46 of the same exhibit.
MR. WILSON: And describe what this is.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is one animated suspect, I guess, or shooter, placed in a similar CAD drawing, photograph animation.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Now go to page 49.
MR. WILSON: And what is --
MR. WILSON: I'm sorry, go back to -- that's the picture I wanted.
MR. WILSON: So, there's three angles represented in this picture, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There are three angles.
MR. WILSON: Two of them are from the same pole, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: One of them is from the dog house, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: You are a lot -- you were fairly -- you believe that the dog house angle is fairly reliable.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: You question the quail house angle, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I place no confidence in that angle from the quail house -- quail pen.
MR. WILSON: Explain for the jury, and you observed the defense expert last week talking about this. How did they come to determine based on these lines and where these -- where these gray figures are placed? How did they come to determine their heights were between 5-2 and 5-4? We'll get to your opinions about that in a moment, but just explain for them how the defense expert got to that decision.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The defense expert said he tried plugging in different heights, and he had to place those animated figures on a plane, that line, that laser line, and he determined that they go back and forth on that plane to achieve the defects that are documented by the original crime scene examiner.
MR. WILSON: Doug, go to page 51 real quick. Let's see if that's the --
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: So, there's some yellow placards here on the ground. Do you see them?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: And what do those yellow placards represent?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Cartridge cases that were found on the ground. They're markers, so, you know, once you find the cartridge cases, you put them there for documentation purposes, photography and sketch purposes.
MR. WILSON: And why -- explain to the jury what the defense -- the defense has determined that their angle is based on the -- on the static lines, those green lines, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's correct. Back and forth on that one static line from one angle, and one static line for the other angle.
MR. WILSON: And they placed them right there at that particular location why?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think the defense expert was taking into consideration the location of the cartridge cases, and he was showing how it would fit those 5-foot-2 animated figures that he placed in that presentation.
MR. WILSON: Is it your understanding, and I'll demonstrate. The gray figures are holding the firearm, and those gray lines represent, like, a string they would run up and down, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. That was the testimony. You go back and forth on this green line.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and that they would be right here because this is where the shell casings are. The shell casings are ejecting, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is how I understood his --
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection to leading. Objection.
MR. WILSON: Why --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Just a moment. Restate the question.
MR. WILSON: I'll restate the question.
MR. WILSON: Why would they be placed right there in that particular location along that static green line?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because they were in proximity to some of the shell casings.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Can you explain to this jury why their assumptions on the math they did are incorrect in determining that the shooter had to be between 5-2 and 5-4?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, there's a bunch of variables, and variables do matter. There are a bunch that you would have to consider. First, you would have to consider this to be a static crime scene, very little movement, and when it is movement it's controlled movement. Second, you would have to place some confidence in that angle of impact on that cardboard. Third, as I testified in my previous testimony, we're not able to test fire with confidence what we know to be the weapon used in this situation with the same ammo. And they don't throw the ammo in the same place every time. It may be in the general vicinity. But as I said, I believe in my previous testimony, if you knew exactly where it was going to throw that cartridge case, you could carry a bucket with you and sit that bucket and all of your cartridge cases would go in the bucket. But like we see in the sketch and in the animated drawing, those cartridge cases are throughout. They're in a pretty large little area. And what I also saw that I noticed from this CAD drawing is this cartridge case is to the left of these animated shooters, which means that's at time at least two of these shots were fired with the shooter far to the left and not, not on this static green line.
MR. WILSON: Could you come down here real quick and point out what you're talking about as it relates to the location of the shell casing?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm not sure if this is a shell casing here, Mr. Wilson, but right here, that is a shell casing, and it did not eject this direction and in any situation depicted here in the presentation. It's not a left-handed -- nobody has ever testified it was a left-hand AR15, and like I said, they're kind of uncommon. And if it is and that's a left hander, then we couldn't explain the majority of them being to the right. So, that's what makes this static line flawed.
MR. WILSON: Thank you. Please --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And in another photograph you can actually see a larger area of cartridge cases back here.
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. WILSON: Let's assume for a minute that the angles are correct, and they very well could be, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They could be.
MR. WILSON: Why is the defense's theory as to the height of the shooter represented in this picture still wrong? What else could affect it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Distance and height.
MR. WILSON: Would you like to take to moment to demonstrate for the jury what you're talking about?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Weapon position, yes, sir. Will you tell me which angle you would like me to demonstrate from?
MR. WILSON: Let me ask you this question before you step down. Can a person be in an -- on their knee and get the same angle and be standing and get the same angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: Can a 6-foot-4 person and a 5-foot-4 person still shoot the same angle just at different distances?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. WILSON: Can you demonstrate for the jury why that is one way that this could have changed their math?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can.
MR. WILSON: Please.
(Break in proceedings.)
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I measured this step on the witness box during a break. It's 8 inches. I used to be 5-11, but as I get older I'm about 5-10, but if I'm here -- or I could be 5-8, or 5-2, or 5-4. Here I'm 5-10, here I'm 6-6, and here I'm over 7 foot and I've still got the same angle. I have just added a little bit of distance to it. And as far as the quail pen angle, I'm 21 inches from the floor to my knee. I believe it was testified that the defendant is 25 inches between the floor and the knee, so there's 4 and a half to 5 inches difference in our heights. Here I'm probably at 4-10 if I'm shouldering this weapon. And I don't know the mechanics or how it got this way. I'm just saying it's possible. Here I'm at 39 -- 38 and some change, or I can even take it lower or higher. And please don't ask me to demonstrate that twice because I don't think my knees can do it again.
MR. WILSON: I think I heard a crack.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yeah, but that takes me to 36 inches, 37 inches. With the defendant it would be about 39, so it's definitely possible. Even from a shouldered weapon it's possible. And you do not know how the weapon was being held.
MR. WILSON: From what you've observed in this crime scene, was Maggie moving at the time she was shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This was a very dynamic crime scene. I believe everything was moving. The victims and the suspect were moving.
MR. WILSON: And how do you know that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, suspect would be the different firearms evidence, the cartridge cases. Like I said, there's no absolute. They're not going to throw the exact same spot, but they will throw them in a similar direction. We've got cartridge cases and a pretty nice sized perimeter. We've got them in different locations from where Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's body -- the final resting place, and different angles and different positions and different direction. So, that tells you it's very fluid and it's very dynamic.
MR. WILSON: So, if I'm holding a gun as I am moving and shooting, what is happening with those shell casings as I move?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They are moving as they're ejected.
MR. WILSON: When -- where was Maggie's head pointing when she hit the ground?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's head was pointed in the direction of Paul Murdaugh, where his body rested back toward the feed room.
MR. WILSON: And what is your opinion of the defense's expert that says the shooter could not have been 6-feet-4 inches tall like the defendant, Alex Murdaugh?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think that's a flawed opinion.
MR. WILSON: Could it have been a 6-foot-4 person?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It could have been a 5-4, 6-4, or in my opinion, a 7-4 as I just demonstrated.
MR. WILSON: Doug, let's go to page 59 in the Defense Exhibit 140. That should reflect State's Exhibit 57.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, can you describe that picture for the jury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I can. That is a shot from inside the feed room, that back window pane where the buckshot exited Paul's left arm, and then continued and exited the feed room.
MR. WILSON: Please go to page 67. It should be State's 45, I believe.
MR. WILSON: And what is that right there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a pink string from the window to a pine tree.
MR. WILSON: And then go to page 69.
MR. WILSON: And what is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know if it's the same pink string, but it's also a pink string coming out of a window.
MR. WILSON: And go to page 74.
MR. WILSON: And that is labeled Exhibit 54. And what is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a picture of Mr. Sutton with what looks like a pump action shotgun pointed down into the feed room.
MR. WILSON: And what do you notice about the angle that he's holding the shotgun and the angle of the string?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the string is parallel --
MR. WILSON: Let me rephrase that. I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. What is the defense's theory right here represented in this picture?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I've heard so many theories. But I really believe Mr. Sutton was trying to show that the angle wouldn't match if it was a taller shooter shooting into the feed room.
MR. WILSON: Okay.
MR. WILSON: Doug, I'm not quite sure what page it is, but I think it's two back. Go back one more. There you go.
MR. WILSON: That's -- it's labeled Exhibit 53. And what is that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a picture of Mr. Sutton holding, I believe, the same shotgun more parallel to the floor.
MR. WILSON: And what is he trying to demonstrate in this photo?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I believe he's trying to follow that pink string to that pine tree or whatever, guiding to that pine tree.
MR. WILSON: Do you recall from his testimony how he got that angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do, sir, I do. Mr. Sutton testified that he got to where he believes Paul was standing, and he got down and he peeped through the hole in the window, the one that he thought would match that corresponding defect in that pine tree, and he ran a string to that defect in that pine tree.
MR. WILSON: Are they trying to determine the angle of the shot is exactly the way the shotgun is being pointed?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I believe they were trying to determine trajectory path of that projectile.
MR. WILSON: What is flawed about this?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: With a rifle you're talking about a single projectile, and most people understand the distinction. If you can find where it was fired and you can get up a perfect impact, sometimes that will give you the idea of the path, the path of the that projectile. With a shotshell you're talking about 9, 12, or 16, in this case 9 buckshot pellets. They're packed in a shotshell with filler, like styrofoam material. They're packed in a shotshell. When that cartridge -- the primer of that cartridge is ignited and those pellets exit the muzzle of that firearm, they start to spread. We've heard a lot of testimony about that, they start to spread, and they spread in a cone. Okay? You've got some at the top, some bottom, some left, and some right, and the more the distance becomes the greater they spread. They're not like a mother duck with the duckings right behind it and all the buckshot are in line. So, you can't get a true trajectory on this shotgun. You can't even measure a true pattern, not even close to a pattern with one pellet. So, it's my opinion that that pellet that definitely impacted that pine tree, that's the top of the cone, so you've still got a bottom and you've got two sides of that cone, and unfortunately none of those pellets were located.
MR. WILSON: So in your professional opinion, can you exclude a 6-foot-4 defendant like Alex Murdaugh, or anyone for that matter at that height, from shooting that shotgun at that angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely not.
MR. WILSON: When the defense expert says that the shooter has to be between 5-2 and 5-4, do you disagree with that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do disagree with that wholeheartedly.
MR. WILSON: With what degree of certainty do you think they're wrong in their conclusions?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I just think it's an unknown. I don't -- I mean, there's many more variables you have to know: how the shooter was holding the gun, you know, how his proportion to legs matches up with body. I mean, that's something that we're all a little bit different. And unless you've got a video of that, or someone tells you how they held a weapon, I think the notion that being able to look at this evidence and determine that is unscientific.
MR. WILSON: You said something a minute ago. You said there's so much we can't know. Could the shooter have been running laterally?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Certainly he could have.
MR. WILSON: Could the shooter have been running toward Maggie?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Certainly.
MR. WILSON: Maggie was certainly moving, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In my opinion she was.
MR. WILSON: Could the shooter have been on their knees?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Could have been.
MR. WILSON: But there's no way to know for sure, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's an unknown, yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: And because there's so many unknowns, there's no way the defense expert can definitively exclude a 6-foot-4 person from shooting the rifle and a shotgun, correct?
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You cannot lead the witness.
MR. WILSON: In your opinion, can the defense, based on what you just testified to, exclude a 6-foot-4 person from being the shooter? And I can provide the weapon.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In my opinion, no. The defense witness is relying on math and absolute, and in crime scene investigation sometimes there are no absolutes.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, have you ever observed a contact wound to the head by a shotgun?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WILSON: How many times have you observed a contact wound to the head by a shotgun?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: After the fact, I've seen several dozen, maybe three dozen. But I also had a gentleman that committed suicide in front of me, probably from me to you.
MR. WILSON: How many times have you actually seen either photos of a contact wound to the back of the head with a shotgun in your professional career?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Probably a dozen. Out of that three dozen, probably twenty-four of them were suicides or someone taking their own life. Probably a dozen execution killings.
MR. WILSON: Can you describe for the jury what kind of trauma to the face -- and I know they've heard from a pathologist, but in your experience as an expert in crime scene forensics, can you describe the kind of trauma you have observed in your career with a contact wound to the back of the head or any part of the head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WILSON: And specifically to the face.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Generally speaking, whether it be a shotgun or a large caliber handgun, the result is similar. You feel as though the forehead and the facial features have went away, and that's a kind way to put it. They're actually there, but they have been -- they've been shredded, and the pathologist can actually put those features back in place, or the majority of it. But looking at it, it looks like from the teeth up the person went away. It's just a mess.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, I would like to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 486. Can you look at that and say if you have seen that picture before?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WILSON: And what is it a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's a picture of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy.
MR. WILSON: What part of Paul Murdaugh, Murdaugh is it a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: His face and his forehead.
MR. WILSON: Do -- does his face look like it suffered the kind of trauma you have observed in the past from a contact gunshot wound to the back of the head, or any part of the head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. Other than some red features from, you know, falling on the cement after the fatal shot and some blotching to his skin, his face looks fairly normal to have gone through what he suffered.
MR. WILSON: And I'm not going to publish the photo again because I think people are tired of seeing it, but I do need for you to describe what kind of things you've observed with the eyes and the bones with people that you have seen that have been struck or shot in the back of the head at point blank range.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Well, it's not always the back now. I've seen some from the side also.
MR. WILSON: From any angle.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Generally, like I said, it looks like the facial features are gone away, or they've at least changed drastically. A lot of times you will get large blood pockets or contusions under the eyes if the eyes don't pop out. A lot of times the eyes will pop out, and they'll be on what's left of the cheeks. The facial bones, you can grab them with your -- with a gloved hand and you can move them around, and you'll actually have pellet exits in the skin flap. If you pull the skin up, you can see where the pellets, whether they be buckshot or close distance birdshot, you can see the actual defects from those pellets.
MR. WILSON: Based on your training and your many years of law enforcement experience, are the wounds suffered to Paul to the back of the head consistent with a contact shot to the back?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely not in my opinion.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Dr. Kinsey, we'll move on from that for just a second. You were here yesterday, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I was.
MR. WILSON: Did you have the opportunity to observe, I want to say his name correctly, I believe it was Tim Palmbach?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. WILSON: He was a crime scene investigator who was qualified as an expert from the defense. Isn't that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: Okay. I would -- he came up with two significant conclusions, let's say three, about how Paul was shot in the feed room. Can you -- do you remember what those were for this jury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The big one that I recall is that Paul was shot in the back of the head with a contact wound. And the other one the -- strikes in my mind, I don't know, the shooter passed him and shot him from inside the feed room. Those are the two big ones that I recall.
MR. WILSON: There was another one regarding the number of people there, was there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The thing about two shooters, yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: We'll get to that in a minute.
MR. WILSON: I would like to -- Doug, can you get the ELMO up?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: I'm showing you what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 182. What's that a picture of?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a picture of that expert with his hands cupped opposite the hinges on the door, the doorframe.
MR. WILSON: Okay. I want to leave this picture up for a moment because what is the direction that the picture was taken from?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: From inside the feed room.
MR. WILSON: Facing what direction?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Outside the feed room.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Now, you had an opportunity to hear the defense's theory on how Paul was shot, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. WILSON: I would like to demonstrate that with you right now.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: Can you walk us through the defense's theory as you understood it to be?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, for purposes of this demonstration, I don't know if the Court would allow it, but it would be nice if we could open this door. I want to make sure that there's security here, but if we could have that door open just for a minute or two?
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Can you open that door?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: I'm grabbing what's marked as State's Exhibit 4, which is a camo Benelli Super Black Eagle 3 shotgun 12 gauge. We'll use this for demonstration, so step down.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: Now, is the door the same width as the feed room door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's a couple of inches wider than the feed room door.
MR. WILSON: And, of course, the feed room door doesn't have this. You know, it's inset, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: So, this is not exactly a replication of what happened at the feed room door, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, it's not. The door swings the same direction, though.
MR. WILSON: Now, you have given me permission -- I'm very careful about muzzle velocity, excuse me, muzzle awareness, but you have given me permission to point this at you, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have.
MR. WILSON: Okay. You actually asked me to, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. WILSON: All right. So, go in there and stand a couple of feet back. It doesn't have to be 5 feet, but you have since testified that Paul was 5 feet inside the feed room, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can we demonstrate the first shot out here?
MR. WILSON: I am. All right. Stand back a little bit because you've got to tumble towards me.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: So, I'm going to point like I'm pointing at you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: Paul is shot. Where is the shooter approximately outside the door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The breech face, or the ejection port of the shotgun is just past the doorframe.
MR. WILSON: Okay. Paul has just been shot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: And then what -- and the defense's theory, walk me -- you tell me what to do, and you act this out, and I'm going to do what you told me to do based on the defense's theory of the case.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The defense agreed with the assessment that Paul stood there for a moment bleeding down his injured left arm, and he slowly walked toward the door.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and what does the shooter do?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The shooter is coming in the door.
MR. WILSON: And then what does the shooter do?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He shoots Paul in the back of the head after he passes him.
MR. WILSON: Okay, and then shoots Paul in the back of the head like this, and where does the blood spatter go?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The blood spatter, the pellets defects, and one that I didn't know about that the expert collected was in the doorframe at the top of the door.
MR. WILSON: And I understand it's a little different than the feed room door, but it's the best we can do. So, what did you find odd about the theory, first of all?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think the theory is preposterous, in my opinion.
MR. WILSON: Can you -- can you walk me through why you think it's preposterous?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely. Number one, that Drylok Number Two shotshell fired the projectile at 1450 feet per second once it leaves the muzzle of that weapon. As was mentioned, that's a millisecond. That's fast. To think that the pressure from flesh and bone will cause that pellet -- those steel pellets now, we're not talking about lead. Lead is a little bit more giving. Lead will -- is malleable. It will crush or flatten. We're talking about steel, BB pellets. They will turn around because of the pressure, go back the opposite direction, 180-degree direction at enough velocity to dent a steel exterior door and embed in the doorframe. That doesn't happen. That doesn't happen, in my opinion.
MR. WILSON: I don't know if you mentioned this earlier, but can you talk about -- I'm trying to get it right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And can I add --
MR. WILSON: Please do.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- also there's no defects to the OSB or the T111 siding in the bottom of the room.
MR. WILSON: All right. Wait a second, you said a lot right there.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: TS what?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: TS111. It's, like, exterior paneling that people put on their buildings. That's what's on the building. The --
MR. WILSON: For all of us city boys, we appreciate you describing that. Thank you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. It's all-weather paneling. There's no defects at the bottom, and if that theory is correct, if this is an entrance and this is an exit, the shot still had to go somewhere. There's no defects down there on anything. The doorframe, as I mentioned in my previous testimony, the doorframe has a clean void that would be perfectly in line with those shot -- from that shotshell. There is no cracks, chips, pellet holes in the cement. There is nothing in the OSB. That's cheap plywood; that's manmade plywood. There's no defects in the plywood. There's no high velocity blood spatter on the floor. What was pointed out to you is medium velocity, and that's from coming out of the wound and gravity bringing it down to the floor. You would see a pattern on the floor just like what you can see in the photographs at the top of that door. None of that's there. So, I have to look at the science, and I have to look at inertia, and I have to look at that shotshell, and how fast that shell is propelled out of that barrel, and I know that it can't turn around 180 degrees and go back the other direction. It's not like blood and tissue. We're talking about steel, steel pellets.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, are there studies on percentages of blowback when you're shooting into someone?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There are.
MR. WILSON: And based on your expert opinion, what percentage of blowback would come back at a shooter if they were able to shoot at that angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I don't think there's any definite, but what I read is 8 to 10 percent except in, you know, like I said, it's not an absolute every time, but 8 to 10 percent. Remember that most of your force is going out the front of the barrel.
MR. WILSON: And a moment ago you were just talking about the defects and all of the trauma that would have happened to the paneling and the floor. Can you point on this photo with the dowel stick behind you for the jury? I just want them to see in this photo.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right in here. The void -- as I documented in my original testimony, the void was from here down. Other than one stray satellite drop of blood, that was fairly clean. From here to at least right here. But there's no defects here; there's no defects in that cement outside. There's no defects in the inside cement, and none in this OSB right here. And that was still there when I did the tour. They have ripped all of the shelving and some of the insulation, but this was still there.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, you may have covered this a little bit, but explain for the jury. If someone is shooting down as we just demonstrated a moment ago here in the doorway, you're leaning out, the shooter is shooting down, how did pellets get embedded into the doorframe up here? How is that possible?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think it's impossible myself. Physics don't work that way unless you're shooting into a trampoline or a huge piece of steel, and then you may have a pellet deflecting back on you. It happens many times, especially when we're shooting steel targets, but not at that velocity. It will not sink into the doorframe, and it definitely will not dent that door with what I documented, in my opinion.
MR. WILSON: What is the -- restate for this jury what the defense's theory based on that blowback that would have exploded into the shooter's face here behind Paul, explain for this jury what the defense's theory is about how that shooter would have been injured.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The defense expert testified that that shooter would be most probably incapacitated from blood, bone, and bloody fluid, and there was a high likelihood that he was injured by those pellets.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, in your expert opinion, is there anything awkward about a shooter standing outside, going into an enclosed area, turn around, and shoot someone from in close? Is there something weird about that to you?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can't figure out the methodology of a shooter. I've, I've never done any crime like that, Mr. Wilson, but I don't see -- if we talk about common sense -- and everybody has mentioned the totality. When they don't have an answer for something, it's always I looked at the totality. But I don't see any reason for someone to squeeze up past one victim in this doorway, to go inside to shoot him back out. And if he did, if that scenario did happen, that doesn't explain all the pellets that are in the floor of the feed room that we've testified -- heard testimony to as to why law enforcement didn't clean those pellets up. If it happened the way that the defense expert says, those pellets would be out here in the yard. They would not be inside that feed room.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, have you had a chance to review the case file on this particular case and observe the defense testimony from last week?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's two separate things. Yes, sir. I have reviewed our case file -- all of the crime scene, or what I felt was crime scene-related evidence. I didn't look into videos and a lot of that other stuff. And I have witnessed the testimony of the defense experts.
MR. WILSON: Are you familiar with what the investigation has determined about the tool marks found on the 300 Blackout shells found around Maggie's body and the tool marks found on the 300 -- the weathered 300 Blackouts shells found way up by the house in the flowerbed? Are you familiar with that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I am familiar.
MR. WILSON: And what do you know about that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The examination --
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection, Your Honor. This is beyond the scope of our case. It's going into completely new information. Their ballistic expert has already testified, and we've presented a ballistics expert, and now they're creating him as a --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Your response?
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, their expert said yesterday about an hour and 9 minutes into their testimony that it would be impractical for one shooter to bring in two long guns. It has always been the State's theory that the shooter owned both guns and had them on him, so we're rebutting what the defense expert said.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
MR. WILSON: Please answer the question.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can you ask me again, Mr. Wilson, please?
MR. WILSON: Are you familiar with what the investigation has determined about the 300 Blackout shells found around Maggie's body and the 300 Blackout shells found up by the flowerbed that were -- appeared to be several months old and weathered? What relationship do the shells have to each other?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: According to the firearms examination, those cartridge casing were loaded and ejected from the same weapon.
MR. WILSON: So, a family-owned weapon is what was used to kill Maggie.
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection. Leading.
MR. WILSON: What do you infer from that information?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I would infer that this is a family-owned firearm.
MR. WILSON: There was some testimony yesterday, Dr. Kinsey, about -- well, it was from the defendant's brother, Mr. John Marvin Murdaugh, and it related to the following day he came upon the crime scene. It had been cleared, and he saw how the crime scene was left. Can you explain -- you've been in law enforcement for how many years?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Thirty years. Well, over thirty, but thirty years getting paid.
MR. WILSON: And you're the chief deputy at the sheriff's department?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office.
MR. WILSON: Just to clarify some things, can you explain normally or traditionally how crime scenes are cleaned up for this jury? Is it the responsibility of law enforcement, in other words?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. There are private companies that are contracted through SOVA. Well, it used to be SOVA. The name has changed now, and I'm sorry --
MR. WILSON: What does SOVA stand for?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's victims -- it's the State Office of Victims Assistance, but it's now changed. I can't tell you what the new acronym is. But it works through our victims advocates. Law enforcement -- victims advocates, almost every department has them. And there's funding provided from tax payer funds to work through your victims advocates, and you go out and you clean these crime scenes for the families so they don't bear the burden of cleaning those crime scenes. Law enforcement in particular cannot collect and dispose of and transport body -- it sounds terrible -- body parts or body fluids. That's something the coroner has to do because it's actually by permit through DHEC. But to make it easy on the family, these companies can collect those items, and then they will turn them over with a chain of custody, and they will properly dispose of those items.
MR. WILSON: Dr. Kinsey, is it your expert opinion that a 6-foot-4 shooter cannot be excluded from the murder of Maggie and Paul?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I see nothing that could exclude a 6-foot-4 shooter.
MR. WILSON: In your expert opinion, can you tell this jury, is it right for the defense to say that there had to be two shooters based on the testimony that you heard yesterday?
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection. Leading.
MR. WILSON: In your expert opinion, can, can two -- can you exclude two shooters?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I cannot include or exclude two shooters.
MR. WILSON: Can the defense include to the exclusion of all other possibilities two shooters?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely not.
MR. WILSON: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: Please answer any questions the defense has for you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRIFFIN:
MR. GRIFFIN: Good afternoon, Dr. Kinsey.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Hey, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: And anyone who has a doctorate degree I want to call doctor. Is it all right if I call you Doctor?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'll answer to anything you call me, Mr. Griffin. I appreciate that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, now your degree, though, is in criminal justice. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: You're not a doctor of pathology.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely not.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you've had no medical training.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have training in pathology of gunshot wounds, yes, sir. I've attended several courses, classes, and seminars. It was also included in the criteria for the certifications I mentioned for the International Association for Identification. I've also conducted extensive research on office -- police officer use of force cases and the injuries that result therein.
MR. GRIFFIN: And your doctorate is in criminal justice, and I believe your dissertation research is in use of force and perceptions of public attitude held by police training?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: What was that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, with the current atmosphere, or what's been going on in the last five or six years in our country, I was just trying to help. I wanted to figure out something that would assist with -- because we've seen some law enforcement officers do some terrible things on video. We've also -- we've got a segment of our society, the minority segment of our population, a lot of those citizens are in fear of law enforcement, and I wanted to study if the media perception as held by the three types of law enforcement trainers, if the media or -- the media perception and the way they portray law enforcement, if that affected the way we train our officers. If we're too hypervigilant or if we -- you know, we tell them, look, there's death waiting for you around every corner. Is that going to make law enforcement more prone to use force or more -- or use less force, or those kind of criteria, and that's what I was interested in. And I was laying the groundwork with a scientific quantitative study to allow someone to come behind me and do some further research just to expand that topic.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right. The -- but you said you also have done some gunshot wound training as part of some certifications?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, the IAI. As I mentioned, I was formerly certified two different times. I think it's a five year certification, and I did let it lapse. The -- in 2015 because that's when I started my Ph.D, and I couldn't study for both. But that is an extensive process where you do research, and you are -- you have to do a written test, and then with my proficiencies throughout SLED, and then I still do some with our sheriff's office now where you have to pass proficiency, and that is practical examinations, testing, and that kind of thing.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now, in this case the State did have a pathologist, Dr. Riemer, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, they did.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you reviewed her autopsy report as part of your work, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Not so much as reviewed her report, but I went and spoke with her in Charleston at her office.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you review her --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have access to her report, Mr. Griffin. I can't tell you I looked through the whole report.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you understood that her opinion was that it was a shoulder shot through the neck, and then up out of the top of the head. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I believe we agreed on that, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And your reconstruction opinion is that's the exact same angle that Paul was shot by the shooter: shoulder, neck, out the top of the head.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. But I didn't just rely on her information. I also looked at the crime scene photographs, and I went to the scene myself.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: But -- and then you -- did you hear Dr. Eisenstat, his testimony?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, you worked with SLED, did you not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Dr. Eisenstat worked for GBI, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: SLED does not have its own in-house division of medical examiners, do they?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. There are several fine medical examiners throughout the state. I've done autopsies in a lot of the bigger cities in South Carolina.
MR. GRIFFIN: Dr. Eisenstat worked -- and he was the chief medical examiner toward the end at GBI, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's what he testified to. I don't know of that doctor.
MR. GRIFFIN: You didn't know of him before this case?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did not, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, he says -- his opinion is it was a gunshot wound contact to the back of the head. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is what he testified to, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if that is -- and he is correct, then your opinion is incorrect. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't share the same opinion as that doctor. But, yes, if he would be correct, that would make me incorrect.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, in your training, are you familiar with doctor -- excuse me, Mr. Di Maio's book on gunshot wounds?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have read Di Maio. I haven't heard it described as the Bible. I don't consider, nor do my cohorts consider, that as the gunshot Bible. There's four or five different versions out. There's one called Terminal Ballistics by Dobb, and there's also Gunshot Wounds by Dougherty, and those are the ones that I'm more familiar with. But I'm not saying it's a bad textbook, and I'm not saying that the information in it is not correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now -- and we'll get to more of that in a moment. What, what I would like to do is first address Mr. Sutton's work that you had criticisms of.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I didn't have criticisms. We just have different opinions. He's an engineer and I'm a crime scene investigator, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I just -- well, seems like you said that the angles of the -- into the quail pen were unreliable.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. GRIFFIN: And --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have several more criteria that I didn't mention earlier, but, I mean, if you want me to go into those, I will.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I want to ask you first. What's your understanding as to how those measurements were taken? Well, first, who took those measurements in the quail pen?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The original angles were the original SLED crime scene agent that responded to the scene --
MR. GRIFFIN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and took those angles.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you understand that Mr. Sutton relied upon Agent Worley's measurements?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, you were putting the dowel, shoving it in a box and taking it out of a box as if Mr. Sutton went back and tried to remeasure.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, that's not what I was insinuating. I said when the original agent removed her dowel, it wasn't nefarious, but depending on how she removed that dowel, she could have altered that impact.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, let's take a look at that, Doug. And this is State's -- excuse me, Defendant's Exhibit 140. And can you pull it up?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The PowerPoint?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah, the one you were showing me. Excuse me. Just go to the second slide. It's right there. There you go.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you understood from this exhibit that Mr. Sutton relied solely on the shot trajectories measured by Agent Worley.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: As I said, it wasn't his intentions, Mr. Griffin. It was his results that I disagree with. It's not absolute, and he gave, in my opinion, an absolute opinion to this.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, why, why would Special Agent Worley take measurements if someone were not -- should not rely upon them?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can't answer that. You would have to ask Special Agent Worley. But in my opinion, the direction of -- even though she can't obtain a perfect angle of impact, or even if that weathered cardboard was damaged, it's not a good substance to depend on because it's just not hardy enough. And she was showing direction. I'm not saying the direction is wrong. I'm just saying I wouldn't put confidence, reviewing this case or working this case, I would not put confidence in anything that that angle of impact tells me because it's cardboard.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you would go to Slide Number 7? I believe I've numbered them correctly.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you recognize that as being one of her measurements?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And do you think she took the dowel out and then put it back in to put this measuring device?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No. Mr. Griffin, I didn't say the angle. I said the angle of impact. When he was talking about the bullet wipe and that part, that's what I was referring to, and that's what I'm saying. That hole can be altered when you remove those dowel rods. That shows direction, but that direction, I don't place a lot of confidence in it because we had more cartridge casings than we had injuries on Ms. Maggie Murdaugh. We don't know if this bullet struck Ms. Maggie Murdaugh, if it struck anyone else. We don't know that the defect in that dog house struck Ms. Maggie Murdaugh. Those are unknowns. We don't know. So, all this proves to me is that the shooter was moving, and more than likely Ms. Maggie Murdaugh was moving.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Hang on.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, Doug, if you'll back up one to Number 6.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, are you suggesting that this photograph, Number 6, taken by SLED and Agent Worley, that that was taken after the dowel was removed, or before a dowel was put in there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Mr. Griffin, I don't know. That's what I'm telling you. I don't know how it was altered when she removed the dowel. I wouldn't place confidence in this before inserting the dowel because it's paper. It's not -- it's not something hardy.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, would your opinions be different if you knew she took the pictures first before inserting the dowel or --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It would still be irrelevant except for direction because we know we had a moving shooter, we know we had a moving victim, and we can't prove one way or the other whether the projectile that caused this defect struck Ms. Maggie Murdaugh.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you'll go to Slide 8.
MR. GRIFFIN: Again, this a Agent Worley's measurements of a dowel in the hole. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Same pictures, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, let's go to Number 9. It's a little closer.
MR. GRIFFIN: And is this measuring up and down or left to right? Horizontal or vertical?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is up and down.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And I wasn't going to mention this, but the actual protractor or level finder is backwards. It would be a much more confident angle if the flat edge was up against the substance, but I wasn't going to bring that out.
MR. GRIFFIN: And SLED did this, not --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: SLED did that, yes, sir. But I don't know what her intentions were. Like I said, she could have just been trying to showing direction. I don't know that, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, this -- I mean, this is direction but it's up and down direction, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. It's showing angle of impact also.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and if you had confidence in the angle of impact, you could do -- whether you're doing it with the FARO system or just, you know, the old fashioned way with some sort of colored twine, I mean, that's -- it's a legitimate way to determine shot angles.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know what it would prove, and I run it through my head a million times. I don't know what more it would prove other than you've got a moving victim, you've got a moving shooter, and that at some point in time Ms. Maggie Murdaugh was over there in the vicinity of that quail pen. And we know that because we identified that tire tread impression on her leg as being from that Polaris, or another Polaris, another tire just like it. So, I know that already.
MR. GRIFFIN: If you would go to Slide 12, please. It's Exhibit 7.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you know that this shot angle through the quail pen also went through the feed room -- I mean, excuse me, through the shed, through that wooden walk -- I mean, the wooden wall there, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't think I observed a photograph to the inside of the shed. I may have, but I don't believe I ever observed that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, do you see Number 12 going all the way through? This is the dowel, and it goes on the outside, the inside, and then on through the back side of the quail pen.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I see it being held up by the cardboard and the rabbit wire, but I don't know what's behind that cardboard.
MR. GRIFFIN: You're unaware that it actually went through the wood there. You didn't know that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do not know. And like I said, I don't see what it would prove. I don't see any more that it would prove than you've got a moving suspect and a moving victim.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, if the measurements included going through fixed wood siding, that would give you more confidence that the angle was accurate, would it not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, but the angle itself will prove no more for me than direction because what this proves to me is at some point in time, Ms. Maggie Murdaugh was close to this quail pen, if this shot is related, and I have no reason to believe it's not, and my shooter was moving and my victim was moving. I don't know forensically what else that can prove.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, certainly you can measure the angle of the door entrance to the quail pen and calculate backwards to see where that shot was fired from.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You could, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that's what Mr. Sutton did, did he not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He did. And I never disagreed with his direction. I'm disagreeing with his final analysis, or his final result that you can judge how tall a shooter is without knowing a whole lot of other variables.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, you understood that Mr. Sutton said that the gun -- the barrel was somewhere on that line some -- to make the shot angle.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Moving back and forth on that line, yes, sir, I heard his testimony.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that he picked a spot and said if you put the gun at a hip level, to get on that line he used a 5-2 person as an example.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Exclusively, yes, sir, I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: But he did not say the person had to be 5-2, did he? I mean, we all know it could be dynamic. A 5-8, a 6-foot person can get low.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What I gathered from his testimony is it was his opinion that only a person in that height range would -- could have fired that weapon. That was my opinion.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, his opinion was that it would be -- a shooter at 6-4, it would be an unnatural position for them to fire at that low of a level.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that's his -- that's his -- that's the part I disagree with. I don't know how Mr. Sutton could publish an opinion about what's natural or unnatural.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, if it's someone 6-4 and the -- the muzzle of the gun is being fired at 28 inches off the ground, I mean, the 6-4 person has got to get down on the ground or hold a gun below their knee. Isn't that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have demonstrated several different ways, depending on distance and height, that a shooter can shoot any -- we don't know. We don't have a video of it, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, but Mr. Sutton's methodology -- and I think I -- what I'm hearing now is you don't have a real dispute to his methodology.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He's an engineer, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: What you dispute is the accuracy of the angle coming out of the quail pen because of the construction being cardboard. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I said that if I was investigating that, and even reviewing that case as a consult, I put little or no confidence in that angle of the impact of that cardboard. Now, I put much greater confidence in the one for the dog kennel.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Well, let's see if we can -- you mentioned you had a fair amount of confidence in the -- at least one of angles coming out of -- out of the quail pen, right? Left or right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The direction, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: The direction.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, let's take a look at that real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we will give you a break at this time. Please go to the jury room. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: The court reporter needs a break. We will take 15 minutes.
MR. GRIFFIN: 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: All right. Thank you. Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRIFFIN:
MR. GRIFFIN: Dr. Kinsey, I'm still talking about the quail pen. Remember how high off the ground that defect is?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do not remember, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: If I show you Agent Worley's report, will you take a look? And we'll start it out at some way or another. If you could, just tell the jury if that's consistent with your understanding of how high that defect is.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 4 foot, 2 inches.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: And did you inspect -- when you were out there, did you inspect the entry to the quail pen or the damage to the shots behind the quail pen at all?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I looked at all of it, but I did not run any angles.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and did you ever talk to Agent Worley about her measurements?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I did interview Agent Worley about her work on the scene.
MR. GRIFFIN: When was that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Like the first or second week of December at the new SLED laboratory. I can give you an exact date if I can look back through my notes.
MR. GRIFFIN: I don't need that. But are you being compensated for your time?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I am, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And how much have you been paid thus far, and how much do you hope to get paid before it's all said and done?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I'm a Baptist, so if I didn't charge something, my friends and family would talk bad about me. But my retainer is $2,500, and I have a flat $100 an hour rate, and when I added it up, I was up a little over 100 hours. But, but I ended my retainer myself without anyone asking me to a little over a week and a half ago, and I'm now working off of a mutual aide agreement, and my sheriff is allowing me to do that, Sheriff Leroy Ravenel from Orangeburg. So, I'm not charging anything from a little bit before last week on.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, 100 hours, $100, is that --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's roughly -- I've spent -- I have expended roughly -- not all of it was daytime, but if I take off, I have to use personal leave from work to do this work. So, roughly 75 or 80 hours I have used of time from work.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. So, you made 7,500, $10,000?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I've spent way more than that running up and down the highways Mr. Griffin. I've probably been to twenty meetings or so. But, yes, sir, if you look at it that way.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, Doug, back to Exhibit --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But I will be going up next week.
MR. GRIFFIN: Exhibit 140. And if you would go to Slide 31, please. I think this is -- yeah.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, this is a -- for Mr. Sutton, and it's got -- let's just focus on the angle going in the quail pen. This is not a height issue. This is the angle. Do you have any disagreement with this angle?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't. The only problem I have with it, I know there was a side-by-side there, and I don't see the side- by-side depicted on this photograph. So, looking at it I could not tell you how that would play into that angle.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, but -- and in the -- well, the quail pen is 4 feet -- the defect in the quail pen is 4 feet, 2 inches off the ground, and according to Agent Worley the shot angle is rising either 1 degree or 1 half degrees or 3 degrees. Is that --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's accurate, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And let me ask you. Do you believe the shot angle is rising? You may not agree with that exact angle, but do you believe it's rising toward the quail pen?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I believe it could be, yes, sir, I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you believe it could be a downward --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do not believe looking at it that it could be downward, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, we can eliminate downward.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, if you're going by my results, I'm saying that I don't believe it's downward.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and so if it's going upward and you take that line back -- and you see this line? At some point in time, it's going to go into the ground, will it not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It should, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And do you know where that terminal point is roughly?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no idea, Mr. Griffin. As I said, I know I've got a moving victim. I know I've got a moving suspect . I know there's a lot of movement. I don't see where that's worth 25 cents or a quarter one way or the other. It gives me an idea that this is a fluid and dynamic crime scene.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, if you had confidence in the vertical angle, then, then you would be able to determine the -- depending on where along the way you would be able to determine the height of the muzzle of the gun if you had confidence in that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I would have to know a bunch of unknowns also. How the shooter is holding the gun. How tall the shooter is. The distance. Did he move a shell casing? Did he not? I don't know those things, and I'm not going to make them up.
MR. GRIFFIN: No. I mean, wouldn't you have to know all of those things to know how high the muzzle is off of the ground at any point along that line?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If you give me a fixed point and I knew that I had a strategic fixed position I was shooting, I could -- sure, I could run a tape measure and know where they were at.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it doesn't matter if it's is 7-4, 6-4, 4-4 person. The muzzle is going to be at a fixed spot, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's the way angles work, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, on this FARO -- and FARO is the -- SLED does FARO work, do they not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it is the state of the art technology in scanning and getting measurements?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is the new thing. We use a sketch pad and pencil, but I do understand the technical part of it.
MR. GRIFFIN: And would you agree with me that the feed room would be about right in here? Can you see that? Do you want to come down and point out where the feed room would be at on this angle? Excuse me, on this FARO. And I'll give you a --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I believe it's right here.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right there at the end of the structure.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. All right. Thank you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And I guess you don't have the measurements, but do you know roughly how far this line, this angle would be away from the corner of that structure?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no idea, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: You've not done that math.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. And I saw no need to if all of the shell casings are up here by the shed.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now, I want to go back to Paul and his injuries and the -- and I guess the -- first off, I want to talk about your analysis. You were being critical -- y'all have been critical of Mr. Palmbach and Dr. Eisenstat, but under your analysis, the shot of the gun was up through the left shoulder jaw and out the top of the head, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that is my opinion.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you -- do you want to come up here? And this is the food room door here. I just want to understand where you have Paul under your analysis. Is Paul on this side?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Which shot, Mr. Griffin?
MR. GRIFFIN: The last shot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The fatal shot?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, as I mentioned in my report, I would assume he's closer to this wall because I've got a void six inches beyond that light switch. If you look at the outside photograph of that building, there's a silver light cover on the wall, and about 6 inches below that I've got one stray satellite drop of blood, and then it's fairly clean. You've got some outliers, but it's fairly clean going down.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. So, you think Paul is closer -- and this would be the door that swung open, so you think Paul is closer to this side.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I think it would have to be Paul because the angle wouldn't match up. If the shooter was here and Paul was over there, it wouldn't match up either way. Whether it was down the head or up in the head, it still wouldn't match up either way if Paul was against the inside of the door.
MR. GRIFFIN: And Paul was standing roughly how I'm standing?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. As I demonstrated, when we tried to demonstrate, me and Mr. Harpootlian were kind of dancing over here, but I believe he come out with his head down, he's drooped on the left side, and he come out on this side with his shoulder just outside of the room. Yes, sir, about like that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and then the shooter is off to Paul's left?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, on this side. Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And the shooter has a shotgun, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. GRIFFIN: And he is some 2 and a half feet away? I mean, the barrel is 2 and a half feet away?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, that's what Dr. Riemer said, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: What do you say?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't believe he was that far away, but I'm not -- like I said in my earlier testimony, I'm not going to contradict a pathologist. She knows more about the human body than I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right, but you don't mind contradicting Dr. Eisenstat.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, because I've been to the scene and I did view all of this evidence, yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, let's -- we'll do it.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you -- say let's take 2 and a half feet from the end of the muzzle, is that where we're talking about?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that is.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then you've got to back the shooter up to hold the gun, and I guess you've got it 45 degrees, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, as mentioned a dozen times so far, I don't know how long this shotgun is.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay, but it would be here. And I don't know where he's standing, most probably behind this wall because Paul is stumbling toward him, so here.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, the shooter is shooting left-handed you think?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I don't know if he's left or right-handed, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I mean, I don't know that part. But that angle would match up despite all of the --
MR. GRIFFIN: That matches up.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that would match up.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, tell me in that angle and this barrel of the gun where that shotshell is going if it ejects.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If I'm pointing into the room, it could go inside the room.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, you just raised it up unless -- I mean, on your angle --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm behind the gun. I'm behind the gun so that's going to push the weapon out a little bit. The ejection port is on the right, so the shell could easily end up in that room.
MR. GRIFFIN: If Paul is standing there and the end of the muzzle is 2 and a half feet away --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: -- you're saying it would eject in the room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The door is this wide, yes, sir, absolutely.
MR. GRIFFIN: At 45 degrees.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's doable, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then under your analysis --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Your analysis --
MR. GRIFFIN: Your analysis --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Oh, my analysis.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your analysis.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: We are not there. We're still in court. The shot is going up through Paul: chest, jaw, out the top of his head.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Number two birdshot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Number two steel shot Drylok 3 Inch, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you counted and I think you said 150, 156. Is that --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the literature says 156. I was, like, 150, but I kept getting tired of counting and I think I kept messing up, so I'm going to say the literature is probably correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and, and I think there were some 60 to 70 that were found in his body at least.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no reason to doubt that, no, sir. I didn't go one, two, three, four, and count them on the x-ray, but I believe that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, Doug, if you'll pull up, please, Defendant's Exhibit 188, which is in evidence. I don't want to do that one, hang on. Do the crime scene photo. And folks, this is going to be a sealed exhibit, so please cover your monitors. And, Doug, this is Defendant's 193. It's in this when you're ready.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you tell us -- do you recognize this photo?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And this is the door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And this part of the door is the blood spatter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. GRIFFIN: And this -- and then there's hair?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There is hair, there's a little bit of bone, and there's some other body tissue.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and there do you think -- where is Paul in relation to the door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He would be right back where I showed you, off 135ish give or take a few degrees closer to this side so you could make that angle. You can look -- you can look in the directionality in the blood and tell which direction it's going.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and coming out the top of his head would be 75 steel pellets?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. That's the only other way for them to get out, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you went out there and you found one indentation.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, it's an indentation, but that is a little deceptive because you can see the paint damage to the top of the door. It -- one indent is what I found, but I said bullet defects. The X got dropped -- I mean, the S got dropped from that. But if you zoom in on that, you can see where the door -- the paint was disturbed around that indentation. But one proves it doesn't go back the other direction, Mr. Griffin. It doesn't take a lot.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you'll pull up 188, Doug, Defendant's in evidence 188. And this is not under seal. 18. And zoom in on the indentation.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There's actually several if you --
MR. GRIFFIN: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- I mean, you couldn't on that one, but.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. So, you said there are more defects on the door.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you document any defects that you observed on the door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I got them in a photograph I can show you. I mean --
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- what other documentation did I need to do it to verify that that's the same door?
MR. GRIFFIN: No, no. I'm just talking about other pellet marks --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There are other pellet marks on there, yes, sir. You just cut that one down. But if you move up a little bit, you can see the little indentions right there in the paint.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Back it up, Doug.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right above the hinge, right here. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There's several of them there.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then you see this pellet here in the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did not see that, but I'm vertically challenged, and I wish I could have looked up and saw that pellet, but I did not see that pellet lodged in that doorframe. But I'm glad, Mr. Maloch -- Palmbach, however you said his name, I'm glad he found it because that even proves my point a little bit more.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, so let me ask you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. GRIFFIN: According to your shot angle, how would the pellet get there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Really? I mean it -- the cone, it's a cone, Mr. Griffin. I've already described how a shot pattern works. It's a cone.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, this missed his head, you think?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No. No. It come out of his head. And the ones in the floor in the feed room probably also come out of his head. They bounced off that door, OSB, and in the feed room.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and so you believe that, that, that this pellet that's in the door jam came through his shoulder, through his neck, out the top of his head, and ended up at that location?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, they didn't turn around and come back out the top of his head, yes, sir, I do believe that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, now, you said there's blowback 8 to 10 percent. What do you mean? You testified earlier the blowback was about 8 --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If someone is behind the stock of a long gun, and you shoot someone within distance to have high velocity spatter come back at you, it's going to be 8 to 10 percent of, of what is in front of the gun is going to come back at you, and a lot of the literature supports that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, were you -- let me show you --
MR. GRIFFIN: And this is under seal so cover up, and it's Defendant's Exhibit 192. Under seal, 192.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you see that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What?
MR. GRIFFIN: This photo.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, this blood spatter down here where you said Paul would be standing, what's your explanation for that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What do you mean what's my explanation?
MR. GRIFFIN: What is it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is medium directional blood spatter.
MR. GRIFFIN: From what injury to Paul?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Probably his brain hitting the sidewalk would be my best guess, but that's not high velocity.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, you understand what Mr. Palmbach said was that that's more consistent with Paul being shot from the top of the head, going through his neck, out his shoulder, and producing that stain.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I also understand Mr. Palmbach said there's no damage over here from those shot pellets, and you can't have one without the other. I disagree with that result.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you believe this is from Paul's brain landing where?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Either his brain -- either his brain landing on the sidewalk, bouncing off the door, or either his body falling in body fluids outside. That's low velocity, low to medium velocity. That's not high velocity blood spatter. That's stomping in a puddle of blood, or something moving in a puddle of blood. That's not the projected blood like you would have a millimeter or less in high velocity blood spatter. That's large. It does show some directionality. It's coming from the doorframe, or either right outside the doorframe, but it's large. That's way too large to be associated with the exit hole of a gunshot.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you understand that the brain landed feet outside --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do understand, Mr. Griffin. But I also know his brain made contact with that door and the top of that doorframe before it landed, and I know gravity works and brings body fluids back down to earth. You've got one or the other. Either that, or when he fell in the exiting blood, that is low velocity. Like I said, that's associated with something in a puddle or something large. That's not associated with a gunshot or high speed machinery.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now, would you agree this is a voiding area over here on the door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I wouldn't agree it's a void area because I don't see the outline of shoes, or I don't see the outline of a implement, or the outline of anything else. I would say there's more concentrated blood droplets over here on the side opposite the hinge, but I would not necessarily agree that's a void area. I see downward spatter on the door right here. In order for that to be a void, that would have to be absent blood.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, you see a little bit.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you don't -- you don't see very much blood on the door.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Not compared to the other side, you're correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But if there's something there, Mr. Griffin, blocking that spot, you're not going to see a little bit. You're going to see none. If you are standing there and I splash you with blood, there's going to be two perfect bloodless footprints there, so that's why I'm not considering this a void.
MR. GRIFFIN: Unless it goes up and comes down.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Gravity brings it down, that is right, and if your person had time to move or whatever, I guess that could account for it, but I don't --
MR. GRIFFIN: What if it went over the person and came down?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that would do what?
MR. GRIFFIN: Body matter went over, brain matter went over, hit the top of the door, and then bounced out, and blood came down, that would account for a drop here or there, would it not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It could account for a drop here or there, but like I told you, the majority of that force is applied upward.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Upward. That's why you've got the hair on the ceiling; that's why you've got the demarcation line on the containers. That body fluid was directed upward with force.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and the -- you mentioned there's no footprints here. Was any effort made to eliminate footwear impressions through any protein enhancers?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I didn't see any of that, Mr. Griffin, if they did. I see no -- I saw no evidence of that when I went back to the scene. Generally when you use dye stains and that kind of thing, it's just going to be there forever.
MR. GRIFFIN: A dye stain would have picked up perhaps stained footwear impressions you can't see with the naked eye, wouldn't it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It may have if someone had stepped in blood and left a footwear impression.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right. Well, there was a shooter somewhere inside or outside the door, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I agree with that.
MR. GRIFFIN: And there was no effort to determine footwear impressions of the shooter.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Mr. Griffin, obviously I don't know. I don't know what the process was. I know they examined some partial footwear impressions.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: You can take this down Doug.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But I don't know how far they went beyond that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, they certainly should have gone further than they did, would you agree with that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Mr. Griffin, I can only judge what I would do, and sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldn't. If I saw evidence that I had something that I needed some more detail, I may would use chemicals, but it just depends on the situation.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Dr. Kinsey, I'm going to show you what we've marked as Defendant's Exhibits 197 and 196, and I'll ask you first. In 197, do you recognize that as potentially a picture outside of the feed room door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, Your Honor, we would move 197 into evidence at this time, without objection I believe.
MR. WILSON: Without objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Are you offering both of them?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any objection to either?
MR. WILSON: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're both admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 196 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 197 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. GRIFFIN: 196. Dr. Kinsey, what do you make of those pop marks on the concrete outside the feed room door?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know, Mr. Griffin. I don't know what they are.
MR. GRIFFIN: Could it be pellets?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I guess they could be.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Or they could be from a pressure washer also.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you have these?
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you're seeing for the jury 197.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then can you zoom in there? Doug, go to 196, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: So, those could be from a pressure washer, and those could be from a number two birdshot pellets, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I don't know. I have to see the cement everywhere else to see how it's weathered.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Now, the last few questions. You mentioned that you had seen some twelve execution style killings with contact wounds to the head.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I said I've worked about three dozen total. Probably twelve of them were homicides to the head. The execution thing, I don't know if it's execution or just contact, but I was saying self inflicted as opposed to someone else doing it.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, let's get it right. Thirty-six total --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Probably three dozen total, yes, sir, and two-thirds of that was probably self inflicted, so that would leave twelve.
MR. GRIFFIN: And self inflicted are usually under the chin, in the mouth, on the side --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the one that I witnessed was to the forehead.
MR. GRIFFIN: The forehead.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And of the thirty-six, how many were shotguns?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No. I've worked a lot of self-inflicted gunshot deaths. I was saying shotguns, all thirty-six of them.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, thirty-six shotguns.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Roughly twelve --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And a couple of them were accidents, too, but yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and the -- and how many involved number two birdshot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't recall. I had some birdshot. I don't remember if it was number two, four, eight, nine. I don't know.
MR. GRIFFIN: And how many were to the back of the head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: A dozen. Probably a dozen that were to the head, contact either the back, or the sides, or the one I told you about in the front.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and in any of those, did the brain evacuate from the -- from the skull cavity?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have seen them -- I have seen the brains come out. Usually that was from one ear. I'm not going to say I haven't seen it. I probably have seen it. But most definitely it -- like I said earlier when I described it, it looks like it goes away. It's really still there. It's just not something you can quantify. I mean, it's just a mess. That's the only way I can explain it.
MR. GRIFFIN: In your career, have you ever worked a case where the victim's brain has been evacuated the way Paul's was in this case?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have, and tongues also. Tongue and brain, I have seen it, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And were those self inflicted?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Both. Yes, sir, both.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you're talking about shotguns?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, shotguns.
MR. GRIFFIN: And I think you described those execution style killings.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. If you put it on somebody's head from the side or the top, I would -- that's how I would describe it.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, let me ask you. Would you describe Paul's murder here as an execution style killing?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In the context that someone executed him, yes, sir, but it wasn't in the top of the head.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that there was no signs of struggle, would you agree with that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I saw none, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And would you agree with Mr. Palmbach that it appeared that Paul got caught by surprise?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I've said that from the start. That would account for his arms being down, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Or someone he was real comfortable with.
MR. GRIFFIN: And even under your analysis, the shooter would have blood, blowback blood on them. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I believe they would, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: It's just a matter of the quantity between you and Mr. Palmbach as to how much blood would have --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, as I mentioned in my report, as you get closer to the muzzle of the gun, I think proportionately it's going to increase. You know, when I said 8 to 10 percent is what most of the literature says, that's behind the stock. But as you get proportionately closer to the muzzle end of gun, that's going to increase because you're down at the business end where those pellets are coming out doing damage.
MR. GRIFFIN: And in this case, you're talking about brain matter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Blood?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And would he get it from some skull fragments?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that's possible.
MR. GRIFFIN: Under your scenario as well.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, absolutely.
MR. GRIFFIN: And lastly, how many murders have you worked where one person brings a high powered assault weapon that has a magazine capacity of twenty or more rounds and a shotgun with maximum capacity of maybe three shells?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I have worked multiple murders where the available weapons there were used and several calibers were used, but I can't tell you from memory of the other ones.
MR. GRIFFIN: Logically it would make sense that if you're going to go kill two people and you have a high powered weapon with a high capacity magazine, that that was all you need to do the job, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, if the weapon is available, Mr. Griffin. If it's there and it's available, and maybe it wasn't something that I put a lot of thought in, I'm probably going to use whatever is available.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, here we know there were two weapons available. There was a 12 gauge shotgun and a AR15 style 300 Blackout.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And both were used.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And there was sufficient capacity in the 300 Blackout to kill both Maggie and Paul, wasn't there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, in a perfect scenario, a shotgun is what I would want at night with moving targets. But in a perfect scenario, a young man doesn't take a double-ought buckshot to the middle of the chest and walk away from it, so I don't know. I don't think like that. I don't know. But in the dark, I would rather have a shotgun than that rifle.
MR. GRIFFIN: Court's indulgence for just a second.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: One more question. You demonstrated Mr. Palmbach's shot from the top of the head with Attorney General Wilson a moment ago?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, that was -- Mr. Palmbach never put anybody inside the door the way y'all demonstrated in your testimony, did he?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That was the way I understood it, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I mean, he said that -- well, can you come up here --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I mean, with the void -- you're talking about the void. He said there's a void here, and this is where I believe the shooter would be, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you'll come up here, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. GRIFFIN: And let me help you find a dowel.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Let me bend down. Don't let him bend down like that.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if you're coming out -- so, get -- you're going to get down. Yeah. Almost to the ground. Further. All the way. Yeah, you probably need to get back down further but you probably can't do that. But the shot to the head as he's coming out, right? Boom.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You would have to be twisted this way for it to work out the way that he said. Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, but that's fine, that's -- but Mr. Palmbach never said that they passed in the doorway, did he?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He might not have said those words, but that was my inference that there's a void there. And when he's in the picture holding his hands here, I took that to be Paul's head, so that's --
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Well, okay. Did you not understand when he was in the picture there he was demonstrating what your angle had to be to make it work?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I wasn't in the door with my angle.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yeah.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. All right. Thank you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's all we have.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
MR. WILSON: Briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WILSON:
MR. WILSON: All right, Dr. Kinsey, you've had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Riemer, the pathologist that actually examined Maggie and Paul, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WILSON: And you've had an opportunity to observe and listen to the testimony of Dr. -- I think it's Eisenstat who was the pathologist that did not examine Maggie and Paul, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: And you've also had an opportunity to go to the crime scene and observe the feed room, and observe the areas where both Maggie and Paul were murdered, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WILSON: You've had an opportunity to observe all the brain matter and tissue in the defects in the doors and the wood and everything and get a complete context for what happened that night, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. WILSON: Is Dr. Riemer or Dr. Eisenstat's conclusions about the trauma to the bodies, which one of them is more consistent with what happened at the crime scene as you observed with your expert background?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I'll start by saying I don't know either of them from a can of paint. This was my first time ever meeting Dr. Riemer, but my opinions are consistent with hers. I vary a little bit on the distance, but like I said, I'm not going to argue with a pathologist. That's not my -- I'm not that kind of doctor.
MR. WILSON: Real quick. You differ with her a little bit on the distance of what?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Of the fatal shot to Paul's shoulder. I believe it was a little bit closer, and I can't account for that lack of stippling. But other than that, her opinions and my opinions are fairly consistent.
MR. WILSON: But that would not change -- that difference of opinion will not change your conclusions either way.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, they will not.
MR. WILSON: For the sake of this redirect, let's assume for a moment that the angles -- the angle of impact and the direction that the defense posed were accurate. Are there other variables that the defense expert didn't account for that could change the height of the shooter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, as I demonstrated, positioning, distance, height, the way you're holding the weapon, that could place those cartridge cases there. It's nothing uniform about it. As I said, it's static and dynamic.
MR. WILSON: So, the shooter is running around and the victim is moving, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: It's chaotic.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WILSON: It's crazy.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I would imagine it was.
MR. WILSON: There's no way to know unless you were there how the gun was being shouldered, where it was being held, the angle, there's no way to know that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no way of knowing that.
MR. WILSON: You were asked about how much you were being paid to be here today. Do you recall what the hourly rates of the defense experts were when they testified?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WILSON: Can you go ahead and tell me what those were?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Some was $350 an hour, some was $650 an hour, and I think one was $5500 a day, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. WILSON: Jim, the pictures you just put into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: I don't know. I don't have them over here.
MR. WILSON: I've got them over here. I just found them. Thank you.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WILSON: Okay. I'm showing you what's marked as State's Exhibit 197. Do you know when that picture was taken?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no idea.
MR. WILSON: Okay. I'm showing you what's been marked as State's -- excuse me, Defendant's Exhibit 196. Do you know when that picture was taken?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have no idea, no, sir.
MR. WILSON: Is there any anything about the defects of that photo that stand out to you other than just concrete defects?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, they're not very uniform, but no, sir, other than that.
MR. WILSON: Does that photo tell you anything?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It tells me nothing, no, sir.
MR. WILSON: That's all I have. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. GRIFFIN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You may step down.
(The witness exited the stand.)