Testimony from Day 7

Motions in limine

Before the jury was brought in, the following issues were discussed.

Mr. Allison told the court that he had witnesses who would testify to the fact that Chris wanted to reconcile with Patricia and wanted to have a traditional relationship with her. Even though this is hearsay, Mr. Allison said that it should be allowed because it shows the victim’s state of mind, which is allowable hearsay.

Judge Dixon said that she was concerned that such testimony would do more to paint Chris in a favorable light and the defendant in an unfavorable light than to show a motive for Patricia to kill Chris. She cited a case, People vs. Ricardi, in her argument. She said that Mr. Allison must be able to show how Chris’ desire to reconcile and to have a traditional relationship would give Patricia motivation to kill him.

Mr. Allison said that he thought he could tie Chris’ desire for a reconciliation and a more traditional relationship to a motive by using emails and the testimony of Jeremiah Hills.

Mr. Duncan objected saying basically the same thing as the judge. The judge kind of ignored Mr. Duncan because she had already explained what Mr. Allison had to do to make the testimony relevant to the case.

Mr. Allison said that one of the witnesses that would testify today, a Mr. Marcello, would speak to Chris’ desire to reconcile, but that he understood his burden to tie that testimony to motive. He went on to say that there were other things that Mr. Marcello would testify to, such as the fact that Chris said that he would be working on his birthday.

After lunch there was more discussion about the logistics of setting up the tent and getting the jurors to the location. There were two issues: the court was concerned that body fluids may have leaked into the tent and then would become airborne when it was set up. She asked that masks be provided to the jury and others who would observe the tent. The other concern was that she didn’t want this to become a media circus, so the tent needed to be set up in a private, rather than a public, area.

Testimony of Mr. Thomas Vasquez, Criminalist with the California Department of Justice, continued

Mr. Vasquez continued his testimony by describing how he took a bullet from the box of ammunition found in Patricia's home and pulled it apart. He determined that the length and design of the pulled bullet was consistent with the bullet recovered from Chris' shoulder.

Mr. Allison gave Mr. Vasquez exhibit #60. Mr. Vasquez identified it as a small envelope on which are his initials and the date he received the envelope and opened it and his initials and the date he resealed it. He opened the envelope and said that there were three bullets in it.

#143. A photograph that Mr. Vasquez took showing the bullet from Chris' shoulder, the pulled bullet, and its cartridge. Mr. Vasquez said that the photograph included his notes showing the weights of each bullet and that those weights were consistent with each other.

#148. A photograph showing the three bullets (#60) and the bullet found in Chris' shoulder (#63). Mr. Vasquez reported that he took the photos of all the bullets, including the nose, base, and side. He weighed all of them, he compared the lands and grooves, and measured the lands and grooves under the microscope. All of these bullets were found to be consistent with Patricia's 1911 handgun. He also reported that he noticed some red discoloring on the three bullets (#60) and tested them for blood. One of the three bullets tested positive for blood.

#147. A photograph of the loaded cartridges from the ammunition box found in Patricia's home.

Mr. Allison asked Mr. Vasquez, what is hot lead? Mr. Vasquez said he didn't know. Mr. Allison asked if when a bullet is fired, will the temperature of the bullet go up. Mr. Vasquez said that yes, it would. He said that when he fires a bullet into a cotton box, he has to wait two to three minutes for the bullet to cool down before he can pick it up.

Mr. Duncan's cross examination of Mr. Vasquez

Mr. Duncan, referring to a report from the Redding forensics lab, said that it appeared that there were a large number of .38 and .40 caliber bullets that have right twisting lands and grooves. Mr. Vasquez said that was true and that Patricia's gun had left twist lands and grooves.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Vasquez how many grains of gunpowder bullets are loaded with. Mr. Vasquez
said that it depends on the manufacturer and on the bullet.

Mr. Duncan said isn't it true that the 180 grains that appears on the outside of the box of ammunition relates to the weight of the bullet, not to the amount of gunpowder in the bullet. Mr. Vasquez said that is correct. The information on the box of ammunition does not say how much gunpowder is in the bullets, nor what kind of powder it is.

Mr. Duncan said isn't it true that the gun powder in bullets is measured in grams, not grains. Mr. Vasquez said that gunpowder is measured in grains, not grams.

Mr. Duncan said that regarding the bullets you examined, you cannot know what gun fired those bullets. Mr. Vasquez said yes, that is correct.

Mr. Duncan said you also cannot know who fired the gun. Mr. Vasquez said yes, that is true.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Vasquez about different kinds of bullets. Mr. Vasquez said that there are a lot of different kinds of bullets.

Mr. Duncan said isn't it true that an intact bullet causes less damage than a fragmented bullet and Mr. Vasquez answered, not necessarily.

Mr. Duncan said isn't it true that a hollow-point bullet causes more damage than a full-metal-jacket bullet. Vasquez said, it depends. He said that because a hollow-point bullet expands when it hits something, it slows down and can be stopped by a bone, while a full-metal-jacket bullet can go through the bone and continue to do more damage.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Vasquez what type of bullet a knowledgeable person would choose to kill someone. Mr. Vasquez said that both types of bullets will kill a person just as dead. He went on to say that it would depend on the situation. A hollow-point bullet would be best if the person was close. A full-metal-jacket bullet would be better if the victim was further away or if you had to shoot through something. In general, though, the hollow-point bullet would be best for killing someone.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Vasquez if he ever fired a gun into a water tank as part of his job. Mr. Vasquez said that yes, he has. He said that it is much easier to find the bullet in a water tank.

Mr. Duncan asked if it would have been helpful to have the gun in this case and Mr. Vasquez replied that it would have been very helpful. He went on to say that there were only three types of guns that were consistent with the bullets that had been sent to him. Mr. Duncan asked how many guns of each type have been manufactured and Mr. Vasquez said that he didn't know. Mr. Vasquez said that with the evidence he was given, he could not tell which type of gun fired the bullets.

Mr. Allison's redirect of Mr. Vasquez

Mr. Allison asked Mr. Vasquez if all this discussion about grains and grams change the conclusion that the bullets he examined were consistent with each other and with Patricia's gun. Mr. Vasquez said that no, it did nothing to change that conclusion.

Next witness - Richard Marcello, cab driver with G2G Taxi in Medford

Mr. Marcello has been a cab driver for 14 years. He knew Chris for about 3½ or 4 months. They talked every day Chris worked. He said that on Tuesdays he would bring Chris an energy drink and on Saturday, Chris would bring one for him. The last time he talked to him was the Saturday before he was told that Chris was missing. They were planning to meet the following Tuesday to go bowling or shoot some pool. He remembered that the weekend Chris went missing was very cold.

Mr. Marcello said that he didn't remember when Chris' birthday was, but he did remember that Chris was planning to work on his birthday. It was common knowledge among cab drivers in Medford that a cab driver had been killed on his birthday a year or two ago. Chris said that he hoped nothing would happen to him when he worked on his birthday.

Mr. Marcello said that Chris was easy-going, nice, and good to talk to. He was accepted by the other drivers and had no enemies that he knew of. Chris told him that he was happy that he and Patricia had gotten back together and that he was looking forward to going on with their relationship.

Mr. Duncan's cross examination of Mr. Marcello

Mr. Duncan got Mr. Marcello to clarify that he worked for G2G Taxi and Chris worked for Checker Cab. He asked Mr. Marcello about the location of the two cab companies and he said that they are both in Medford, about 2½ to 3 miles apart. Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Marcello when he would actually see Chris and Mr. Marcello replied that they would meet at the airport and downtown.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Marcello if Chris had begun working for Checker Cab in June 2012. Mr. Marcello said that he wasn't sure.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Marcello if Chris was trying to get his birthday off. Mr. Marcello said not that he recalled. Mr. Duncan said if Chris got the day off, he didn't tell you and Mr. Marcello said no, I didn't talk to him about that.

Next witness - Detective Jacques Morlet, Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office, Major Crimes Division

Detective Morlet has been in law enforcement for six years and four months and a detective for 3½ years. Detective Morlet reported that his involvement in the case began on November 23, 2012, when he was asked to author a search warrant to search Patricia's home in Medford. He was briefed by the other investigators on the case.

Mr. Allison asked Detective Morlet to describe the search warrant process. Detective Morlet told the jury that detectives can't just go over to someone's house and begin searching. They must obtain permission from a judge by submitting, in writing, the reason for the search. The reason must demonstrate that there is a probably cause that a crime has been committed. This gives the police permission to search a home, looking for items associated with the crime.

When asked by Mr. Allison, Detective Morlet identified Patricia by pointing to her. He said that during the search of Patricia's home, they found a receipt from Jack-in-the-Box. Detective Morlet said that he went to the Jack-in-the-Box and spoke with the manager, a Mr. Reza. He obtained the surveillance video for the time indicated on the receipt. Mr. Allison showed Detective Morlet:

#151. A CD with the surveillance video on it
#150. The Jack-in-the-Box receipt

Detective Morlet said that these were the items that he had obtained from the Jack-in-the-Box and
from Patricia's home, respectively. The surveillance video was played for the jury. It showed Patricia's Dodge Stratus pulling up to the Jack-in-the-Box drive-through speaker at 309 E. Cornett in South Medford at 00:02:44, November 17, 2012, (12:02 AM, Saturday morning). A second video on the same screen showed Patricia's Dodge Stratus, with its license plate visible, pulling up to the pickup window at 00:03:40, November 17, 2012, (12:03 AM, Saturday morning). There were clearly two people in the car, although the way the light was shining on the windshield, it was impossible to positively identify them. Money was given to the cashier, change was given back, and two drinks were handed into the car. One of those drinks was clearly passed to someone in the passenger seat. The video was consistent with the information on the Jack-in-the-Box receipt and Detective Morlet verified that the license plate in the video was the same as the one on Patricia's car when it was brought in to be searched on November 28, 2012.

Detective Morlet also said that he went to the Rogue Valley Medical Center to observe the x-ray of the tent containing Chris' body. He then observed Chris' autopsy, specifically to see if Chris was wearing his wedding ring, which was an outstanding item from the investigation. Detective Morlet reported that he did not see a wedding ring on Chris, nor did he see a mark that a wedding ring would be expected to leave on his finger.

Detective Morlet reported that he also participated in the interview of Samantha Adams and in the interview of Amber Lubbers at Kris Lubbers' home.

Detective Morlet reported that on November 28, 2012. he went to Patricia's home at 1492 Clear Springs Dr., in Medford to pick her up and take her to the impound yard so she could pick up her car. As they drove, Patricia talked about going back to the campsite on Saturday, November 17, 2012. She said that she went through downtown Jacksonville, past all the stores and banks, which was the only way she knew of to get to the Applegate.

Detective Morlet reported that he conducted searches on December 19, 2012, at 2545 Howard and at Amber Lubbers' home at 613 Newtown, both in Medford. He also was involved with the search of Patricia's Dodge Stratus. Mr. Allison showed Detective Morlet the following pictures:

#98. The back of Patricia's Dodge Stratus
#105. Inside the trunk of Patricia's Dodge Stratus
#106. Inside the trunk of Patricia's Dodge Stratus
#109. Inside the trunk of Patricia's Dodge Stratus

Mr. Allison asked Detective Morlet how high it was from the ground to the lowest part of the trunk opening on Patricia's Dodge Stratus. Detective Morlet estimated the distance to be about 2½ feet. Detective Morlet also pointed out a cot that was visible in all three pictures of the inside the trunk of Patricia's Dodge Stratus. He said that they saw the cot, but did not collect it.

Detective Morlet also reported that he participated in the search of Patricia's home on November 23, 2012, at about 11:00 PM. While others conducted the search, he said down with Patricia and talked with her. That conversation was recorded and, later, transcribed. By that time, Patricia knew that Chris was dead.

Detective Morlet said that Patricia appeared to be detached, sometimes she laughed and sometimes she cried. Detective Morlet didn't remember the children being present. When the officers came to the house, the door was answered by a man named Darren.

During their talk, Patricia mentioned Jeremiah Hills. She described her relationship with him as a friend with benefits. She said that they had an unorthodox type of relationship and described it as a sexual relationship. Patricia said that Chris wasn't jealous of Jeremiah, but that Chris didn't like Jeremiah because Chris felt he was disrespectful of her because Jeremiah would put a dog collar on her. She said that when she and Jeremiah were alone they would role-play. Patricia said that Chris had found the collar, but didn't remember when he had found it. When Chris saw the collar, he and Jeremiah had a verbal altercation, a yelling match or a heated argument that Patricia said she had to defuse. They did not hit each other.

Patricia told him that Chris has moved back in in September, 2012. Detective Morlet asked for clarification by asking if that means that they were sleeping in the same bed and Patricia said yes, they were.

Patricia also said that Chris had four days off: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (November 15 through 18); from both the cab company and the FTD call center. Mr. Allison asked Detective Morlet if those days seemed inconsistent and Detective Morlet said that he didn't remember if they were or not.

During the interview Patricia told Detective Morlet that she had a life insurance policy when she was in the army and that Chris had gotten an insurance policy for both her and him.

Patricia said she was surprised that he didn't have his wedding band with him on the camping trip. She said that she believed he had it on during the camping trip and she said that he would only take it off when his hand got swollen.

Patricia said that she had two sisters, Amber and Erin. She said that Amber and she were very close and that they would see each other many times a week. They weren't blood sisters, but were sisters by marriage and they lived together for many years, until a divorce separated them. Patricia said they grew up like sisters.

Mr. Duncan's cross examination of Detective Morlet

Under Mr. Duncan's questioning, Detective Morlet said that Patricia had told her that she didn't think they actually had the insurance policy.

Detective Morlet also said that Patricia had told him that Chris was ok with her relationship with Jeremiah Hills, but that he was upset by the dog collar.

Detective Morlet reiterated that Patricia was surprised about Chris not having his ring on the camping trip.

Detective Morlet said that this conversation took place at Patricia's home and that her statements were all given voluntarily.

Mr. Duncan then asked Detective Morlet how he had gotten to Jacksonville: which exit to take off of Highway 5, what street he took from Medford to Jacksonville, and if there are any other ways to go. Detective Morlet said that he wasn't driving and didn't remember the answers to these questions.

Mr. Duncan asked Detective Morlet who Darren was. Detective Morlet said Darren told him that he was a friend of the family. Mr. Duncan began to ask more questions about Darren, but Mr. Allison objected, saying that it was beyond the scope of the direct examination. The objection was sustained.

Mr. Duncan asked Detective Morlet if, when he interviewed Samantha Adams, she had told him that she had been engaged to Chris. Detective Morlet said yes, that is what she said. Mr. Duncan asked if they were still engaged at the time of Chris' death and Detective Morlet said no, Samantha had told him that they were engaged up until April 2012. Mr. Duncan asked if Samantha had known that Chris was married and Detective Morlet said that yes, she did. Detective Morlet reported that Samantha said she continued seeing and talking to talking to Chris after he and Patricia had reconciled.

Mr. Allison's redirect of Detective Morlet

Mr. Allison asked if Patricia said that she and Chris were dating other people while they were separated. Detective Morlet said that yes, she did.

Detective Morlet reiterated that Patricia had told him that she knew of only one way from Medford to the campsite and that was through downtown Jacksonville. He said that Patricia had told him that multiple times on both days.

Next witness - Brett Liddicoet, Northern California Computer Crime Task Force

Mr. Liddicoet has been in law enforcement for 29 years, 21 years on patrol and 7½ years as an investigator working with computers. He works at the Northern California Computer Crime Task Force in Marin, CA, doing computer forensics.

He testified that he received Patricia's computer and was asked to look for pictures, website activity having to do with dating, and financial records. He removed the hard drive from the computer and made a forensic copy, leaving the original hard drive untouched. He examined the copy that he had made. Mr. Liddicoet identified the following items:

#152. Two computer disks dated September 17, 2013. Mr. Liddicoet said that his initials and ID number are printed on the labels of the disks by the printer that he uses at his work.
#153. A partial printout of dating website artifacts.

Mr. Liddicoet explained the column headings and the data for one of the records on page one of the printout:

Item number: 636
Website name: Match.com
URL: (a series of numbers, which were not read out to the court)
Artifact: Internet Explorer history
Artifact ID: not sure what this means
Date/time/UTC: 9/14/12 - 03:56 (which is 9/13/12 - 8:56 PM PST)
Source: The place on the hard drive the data was found
Location: The length of the data found at that place

Mr. Liddicoet explained the column headings and the data for one of the records on page two of the printout:

Item number: 77
Website name: OKCupid.com
URL: (a series of numbers, which were not read out to the court)
Artifact: Internet Explorer history
Artifact ID: not sure what this means
Date/time/UTC: 9/15/12 - 00:26 (which is 9/14/12 - 5:26 PM PST)
Source: The place on the hard drive the data was found
Location: The length of the data found at that place

Mr. Liddicoet presented the second to last and the last entries on the last page of the printout:

Website name: OKCupid.com
Date/time/UTC: 11/22/12 - 10:59 (which is 11/22/12 - 3:59 AM PST)

Website name: OKCupid.com
Date/time/UTC: 11/23/12 - 08:56 (which is 11/23/12 - 1:36 PM PST)

Mr. Duncan's cross examination of Mr. Liddicoet

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Liddicoet how many computers he worked on for this case. Mr. Liddicoet said that he worked on one. He said that he was told that the computer belonged to Patricia.

Mr. Duncan asked Mr. Liddicoet if he could tell who was using the computer and Mr. Liddicoet said that he could not. Mr. Duncan said that Patricia or Chris could have been using the computer and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Mr. Liddicoet agreed that he would not.

Under questioning by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Liddicoet said that he could not tell whether the person visiting a website was searching for a male or a female. He said that the website artifact showed the time that the website was visited, but not when the website was left. He also said that the list of website artifacts would include popups in the list. Popups are just another website as far as the browsing history is concerned.

Mr. Allison's redirect of Mr. Liddicoet

Mr. Allison asked Mr. Liddicoet if there would be a way to tell the difference between a normal website URL and a popup URL. Mr. Liddicoet said that the time stamp of the popup would be nearly the same time as the time stamp of the website.

Mr. Allison presented a document, #155, to Mr. Liddicoet  He said that it was a photocopy of the hard drive from Patricia's computer.

Mr. Allison asked Mr. Liddicoet if he thought that it might have been Chris MacCallum, who was killed on November 16, using the computer on November 22 and 23, 2012, to visit the websites shown on the last two entries on the website artifact list. Mr. Liddicoet said no, Chris couldn't have used the computer on those days. 

Mr. Duncan's recross of Mr. Liddicoet

Mr. Duncan said that he noticed that only dating websites were listed on the printout. He asked if a person was visiting a neutral website and a dating website popup appeared, would the neutral website appear in the report. Mr. Liddicoet said that all website URLs would appear on the report. Each page that was visited would produce a new URL and an entry on the artifact report.

Mr. Allison's redirect of Mr. Liddicoet

Mr. Allison asked Mr. Liddicoet if someone else could take the hard drive and analyze it to see what other--possibly neutral--websites were visited. Mr. Liddicoet said that since he did his investigation from a copy of the hard drive, the original hard drive was the same as when he received it, so someone else could examine it.

Next witness - Corporal Jeremiah LaRue, Siskiyou County Deputy Sheriff

Corproal LaRue is the Assistant Search and Rescue Coordinator for Siskiyou County. Search and Rescue consists of two officers and 30-35 volunteers. Cpl. LaRue has participated in week-long search and rescue training in Oregon, where is has been trained to look for both people and evidence. The search and rescue volunteers participate in the same training.

Cpl. LaRue said he was contacted on November 20, 2012, at about 8:00 AM and was told to call Sgt. Shawn Richards of Jackson County Search and Rescue. Sgt. Richards described the location of the campsite and gave him Patricia's phone number. Cpl. LaRue called Patricia's number and a female answered the phone and said she was Patricia. At this point, Mr. Duncan stipulated that it was Patricia MacCallum, present in the courtroom, who Cpl. LaRue talked to that day.

Cpl. LaRue said that Patricia gave him compete directions to the campsite: Go from Medford to Highway 238, turn left on Applegate Road, turn left past the lake, when the road turns to dirt, turn right, and cross five bridges. Cpl. LaRue arrived at the campsite at about 5:00 PM. Officer Eric Johnson was there and he took him down to the campsite. He pointed out the tent down the side of the campsite. He told Cpl. LaRue that he had found shell casings and blood in the tent. Cpl. LaRue said that it would be his responsibility to recover the tent.

Mr. Allison showed the same, 15-minute video, taken at the campsite, that was shown the previous day. Cpl. LaRue identified the video as showing the campsite that he had gone to on November 20, 2012. He identified the road, where he parked, the fire pit, the cliff, and where the body was found. He said that the water level in the river was higher on November 20, 2012, than it was on the video. He also said there was no snow on the ground.

Cpl. LaRue said he came to the campsite on November 20 with several high-angle rescue workers. It was too dark to attempt the rescue that night, so everyone went home to prepare for the next day. He remained at the campsite with Officer Johnson. No one else was present at the campsite and Cpl. LaRue said that he saw no civilians between the Applegate Dam and the campsite. Cpl. LaRue said he did not sleep that night. He spent the night in his vehicle. 

Cpl. LaRue said that Siskiyou County and Jackson County Search and Rescue teams, about 30 people in all, came to the campsite at about 11:00 AM, November 21, 2012. In addition to recovering the tent, they searched the campsite out to about 100 yards in all directions. Cpl. LaRue told the teams to look for a weapon, shell casings, bloody clothes, and anything else--from cigarette butts to empty cups.

Mr. Allison showed Cpl. LaRue item #156. He identified it as a picture of a gallon jug, which appears have water in it. Mr. Allison asked Cpl. LaRue if that jug had been at the campground, would it have been tagged and bagged. Cpl. LaRue said yes, it would have been.

Mr. Allison showed Cpl. LaRue item #43. He identified it as an empty Coleman lantern box, showing a battery powered LED lantern. Mr. Allison asked Cpl. LaRue if that lantern had been at the campground, would it have been tagged and bagged. Cpl. LaRue said yes, it would have been.

Mr. Duncan's Cross Examination of Cpl. LaRue

Mr. Duncan asked Cpl. LaRue when he had called Patricia and he said that he called her in the morning of November 20, 2012. He said that he was called at about noon by the deputies at the campsite. He said that Patricia gave him accurate directions to the campsite.

Mr. Duncan asked Cpl. LaRue to describe how he got to the campsite. He said that he went through Medford to Highway 238. Mr. Duncan asked Cpl. LaRue where he had gone through Medford in relation to Patricia's home. Cpl. LaRue said that he didn't know where Patricia lived. He said he had only talked to her on the telephone. Mr. Duncan asked if he got on Highway 238 before or after Jacksonville. Cpl. LaRue said he didn't know. Mr. Duncan continued to press Cpl. LaRue on this matter until finally Cpl. LaRue said that with all due respect, no matter how many times Mr. Duncan asked the question, he still wouldn't know the answer.

Finally, Mr. Duncan asked Cpl. LaRue about the empty lantern box. Cpl. LaRue said that he didn't know where or when it was recovered.

Jury observation of the tent

Floor of the tent, showing bullet holes

At the end of Cpl. LaRue's testimony, Judge Dixon told the jury that the tent that had been recovered with Chris' body inside had been set up, using identical poles from another tent, for the jury to examine. She said that there is the possibility that some bodily fluids remain in the tent and could possibly become airborne. Because of that, they would be given masks to wear while examining the tent.

Mr. Allison asked the jury to observe the holes in the bottom of the tent and to examine the sides of the tent for any additional holes.

Spectators were not allowed to go see the tent with the jury.

From the Clerk's Docket and Minutes

8:50 - In session
9:30 - Thomas Vasquez resumes testimony
10:00 - Richard Marcello begins testifying
10:15 - Recess
10:40 - In session, Jacques Morlet begins testifying
11:50 - Recess
1:30 - In session
1:55 - Brett Liddicoet begins testifying
2:35 - Jeremiah LaRue begins testifying
3:25 - Recess
3:35 - In session
4:15 - Recess

End of day 7
Last update: 5/5/14 - Return to the Patricia MacCallum trial home page