Cross-examination of Steven Schwab (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Steven Schwab (part 1) — Wednesday, February 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\8\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-STEVEN-SC.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 15 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Steven Schwab (part 2) Cross-examination of Steven Schwab (part 2) ▶

Witness: Steven Schwab
Examiner: Carl Douglas
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 • Utterances: 186

Carl Douglas cross-examines Steven Schwab, who discovered Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita wandering near Bundy Drive on the night of the murders. Douglas attacks a police interview document dated June 17 (vs. Schwab's stated June 13 interview), establishes that Schwab never gave a specific '11:15' time to detectives but instead gave approximate ranges, and methodically works through the moments before Schwab spotted the dog — confirming he neither heard wailing nor saw the dog until he was halfway between the alley and Bundy.

# 1 THE COURT:

MR. DOUGLAS.

# 2 MR. DOUGLAS:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 3 THE COURT:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 4 MR. DOUGLAS:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 5 STEVEN SCHWAB:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 6

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 7

BY MR. DOUGLAS:

# 8 Q:

MR. SCHWAB, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

# 9 A:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 10 Q:

HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW ANY DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO TESTIFYING TODAY?

# 11 A:

WHEN I RECEIVED MY SUBPOENA, I GOT A COPY OF MY TESTIMONY FROM THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT CAME WITH THE SUBPOENA.

# 12 Q:

AND YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THAT OVER, SIR?

# 13 A:

I LOOKED IT OVER, YES.

# 14 Q:

DID YOU ALSO HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD GIVEN TO THE OFFICER ABOUT WHICH YOU SPOKE?

# 15 A:

NO.

# 16 Q:

YOU'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

# 17 A:

I WAS CALLED IN YESTERDAY AND I SPOKE TO MARCIA CLARK AND TO CHERI YESTERDAY WHILE I WAS WAITING IN THE INTERVIEW ROOM.

# 18 Q:

HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO SPEAK TO ANYONE ELSE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

# 19 A:

NO.

# 20 Q:

NOW, THE INTERVIEW THAT YOU HAD WITH THE OFFICER OCCURRED WHAT DAY?

# 21 A:

THAT WAS JUNE 13TH.

# 22 Q:

AND WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING?

# 23 A:

I -- THE ONLY TIME I LOOKED AT THE CLOCK WAS WHEN I WAS FIRST WOKEN UP. I LOOKED AT THE CLOCK ON MY NIGHTSTAND, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TIME THAT IT SAID, BUT I REMEMBER THINKING, MY GOD, WHO COULD IT BE, IT'S 5:00 A.M. SO THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.

# 24 Q:

DID YOU EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW A COPY OF THE STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN OF YOUR INTERVIEW?

# 25 A:

I WAS SHOWN THE STATEMENT AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEFLY.

# 26 Q:

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME THE STATEMENT SAID THAT OR WHAT DAY THE STATEMENT SAID THAT THE INTERVIEW OCCURRED?

# 27 A:

NO.

# 28 MR. DOUGLAS:

CAN I JUST SHOW HIM SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR?

# 29 THE COURT:

YES.

# 30 Q:

BY MR. DOUGLAS: I WANTED TO SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT AND ASK YOU TO LOOK IT OVER AND TO READ IT TO YOURSELF.

# 31 (THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)

# 32 Q:

IS THAT A ONE-PAGE STATEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERVIEW THAT YOU GAVE?

# 33 A:

IT'S A ONE-PAGE STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN OR WHAT IT WAS WRITTEN BASED ON. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT.

# 34 Q:

AND WHAT DATE DOES IT SAY THAT THE INTERVIEW ACTUALLY OCCURRED?

# 35 A:

SAYS 6-17-94.

# 36 Q:

AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FRIDAY, JUNE 17TH, CORRECT?

# 37 A:

IT SAYS JUNE 17TH, BUT--

# 38 Q:

AND THAT WOULD BE INCORRECT?

# 39 A:

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS STATEMENT WAS WRITTEN. SO IF IT'S MEANT TO REFLECT WHAT I SAID ON THE 13TH, THEN SAYING THE 17TH WOULD BE WRONG. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN OR IN REFERENCE TO WHAT.

# 40 Q:

OKAY. DID YOU EVER HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH A DETECTIVE ROBERTS ON JUNE THE 17TH?

# 41 A:

I DON'T RECALL MEETING A DETECTIVE ROBERTS AND I DON'T RECALL TALKING TO ANYONE ON JUNE 17TH.

# 42 Q:

YOU RECALL TALKING TO AN OFFICER ON THE 13TH?

# 43 A:

TWO OFFICERS.

# 44 Q:

DO YOU RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES?

# 45 A:

NO. I DID NOT GET THEIR NAMES.

# 46 Q:

TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS DOCUMENT SUGGESTS THAT YOUR INTERVIEW WAS ON THE 17TH, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT?

# 47 A:

AGAIN, IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO REFER TO THAT INTERVIEW WITH THE TWO DETECTIVES, THEN -- THEN -- I DON'T KNOW -- AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO. SO YOU'RE ASKING ME TO SAY IF IT'S ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR EVENT, THEN IT'S WRONG. I DON'T KNOW.

# 48 Q:

WELL, THE STATEMENT IS A ONE-PARAGRAPH STATEMENT; IS IT NOT?

# 49 A:

YES.

# 50 Q:

AND IT TALKS ABOUT YOU WALKING YOUR DOG IN THE AREA AROUND BUNDY AND DOROTHY, DOESN'T IT?

# 51 A:

WELL, FIRST IT SAYS DUNDY. IT DOESN'T SAY BUNDY. SO THAT COULD BE A SPELLING ERROR.

# 52 Q:

OKAY.

# 53 A:

IT'S --

# 54 Q:

AND THE STATEMENT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS DOG CAME UP TO YOUR DOG AND STARTED FOLLOWING THE BOTH OF YOU; DOES IT NOT?

# 55 A:

THERE'S A SENTENCE TO THAT EFFECT, YES.

# 56 Q:

AND IT KEPT GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, CORRECT?

# 57 A:

IT SAYS -- YES. IT SAYS IT'S MENTIONED GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.

# 58 Q:

AND THAT THE DOG KEPT FOLLOWING YOU UNTIL YOU GOT HOME, CORRECT?

# 59 A:

YES.

# 60 Q:

AND IT SAYS IN THIS STATEMENT THAT YOU FIRST SAW THE DOG AROUND 11:15, DOESN'T IT?

# 61 A:

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THE STATEMENT.

# 62 Q:

NOW, WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH THE OFFICERS ABOUT THIS OCCURRENCE, YOU WERE PRESENT WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER OFFICER?

# 63 A:

YES. THERE WERE TWO DETECTIVES PRESENT AT -- ON THAT MONDAY MORNING.

# 64 Q:

AND THEY WERE BOTH IN PLAIN CLOTHES?

# 65 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 66 Q:

AND THEY WERE SPEAKING WITH YOU AND YOUR WIFE AS WELL?

# 67 A:

THEY WERE SPEAKING TO ME. MY WIFE WAS PRESENT.

# 68 Q:

WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT?

# 69 A:

BETTINA AND SUKRU.

# 70 Q:

SO THE FOUR OF YOU AND THESE TWO DETECTIVES WERE STANDING TOGETHER TALKING?

# 71 A:

YES. THEY WERE ALL PRESENT.

# 72 Q:

WAS EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR PORTION OF WHAT OCCURRED OR WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TIMES THAT YOU FIRST SAW THE DOG?

# 73 A:

THERE WAS MUCH CONTRIBUTION FROM ALL OF US AND IT WASN'T JUST -- WE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE DETECTIVES AS WELL BECAUSE WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THAT POINT.

# 74 Q:

DO YOU RECALL SPECIFICALLY TELLING THE DETECTIVE THAT YOU SAW THE DOG AT 11:15 OR DO YOU RECALL GIVING SOME OTHER RANGE?

# 75 A:

I RECALL GIVING VARIOUS TIMES AND NOT BEING CLEAR EVEN AT THAT POINT OF WHAT TIME IT WAS. I DIDN'T SAY IT HAPPENED AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT. THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID.

KEY QUOTE

# 76 Q:

SO YOU NEVER SAID THAT IT HAPPENED SPECIFICALLY AT 11:15?

# 77 A:

CORRECT.

# 78 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. IT'S NOT IMPEACHING. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE REPORT EITHER.

# 79 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

# 80 Q:

BY MR. DOUGLAS: DID YOU -- WHAT RANGE DO YOU RECALL GIVING THEM OF THE TIME FRAME ABOUT WHICH YOU FIRST SAW THE DOG?

# 81 A:

AS I SAID -- I SAID -- I MENTIONED 11:30 AT ONE POINT, I MENTIONED 11:00 O'CLOCK, BUT ALWAYS IT WAS AROUND 11:00 -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS AROUND 11:30 OR IT WAS AROUND 11 O'CLOCK. THOSE WERE THE TIMES THAT I WAS GOING THROUGH IN MY MIND.

# 82 Q:

AND WAS IT THE NEXT DAY THAT YOU THEN CALLED BACK 911 SEEKING TO CORRECT THE MISINFORMATION THAT YOU HAD GIVEN?

# 83 A:

I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEXT DAY, YES.

# 84 Q:

AND DO YOU RECALL THE PERSON WITH WHOM YOU SPOKE THE NEXT DAY?

# 85 A:

NO. I DID NOT GET THE NAME OF THE OFFICER TO WHOM I SPOKE.

# 86 Q:

YOU TOLD THEM YOUR NAME?

# 87 A:

YES. I BELIEVE THAT I DID.

# 88 Q:

DID YOU GIVE THEM YOUR ADDRESS?

# 89 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

# 90 Q:

DID YOU TELL THEM THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A STATEMENT AND HAD GIVEN A CERTAIN TIME ABOUT HAVING FOUND A DOG?

# 91 A:

I TOLD THEM THAT I WAS -- I WAS NOT CLEAR THE NIGHT BEFORE WHEN I HAD GIVEN A STATEMENT.

# 92 Q:

OKAY. SO YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERRED IT TO AN EARLIER INTERVIEW?

# 93 A:

YES.

# 94 Q:

DID SOMEONE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OFFICER COMING BACK TO YOU TRYING TO CLARIFY THE MISINFORMATION?

# 95 A:

THEY -- I BELIEVE THEY SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU, BUT -- SO I WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER SOMEONE WOULD CALL OR WHETHER SOMEONE WOULD COME BY.

# 96 Q:

HOW DID THEY TREAT YOU WHEN YOU CALLED THEM BACK TRYING TO CORRECT THE EARLIER STATEMENT? WERE THEY RUDE TO YOU?

# 97 A:

NO.

# 98 Q:

WERE THEY ABRUPT WITH YOU?

# 99 A:

NO.

# 100 Q:

DID ANYONE EVER CONTACT YOU TO TRY TO CORRECT THE MISINFORMATION THAT YOU HAD GIVEN EARLIER?

# 101 A:

I DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE PRIOR TO GETTING MY SUBPOENA FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

KEY QUOTE

# 102 Q:

NOW, YOU SAY THAT AS YOU WERE WALKING ON YOUR WALK WITH YOUR DOG -- AND BY THE WAY, WHAT KIND OF DOG DO YOU HAVE?

# 103 A:

MY DOG IS PART CORGI AND PART SHELTIE.

# 104 Q:

AND WAS YOUR DOG BEING WALKED ON A LEASH?

# 105 A:

YES.

# 106 Q:

YOU SAID AS YOU WERE WALKING DOWN GORHAM, YOU HAPPENED TO COME ACROSS TWO INDIVIDUALS?

# 107 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 108 Q:

AND THEY WERE WALKING WESTBOUND ON GORHAM OR WERE THEY WALKING EASTBOUND? AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER WOULD BE TOWARDS THE WEST.

# 109 A:

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S NOT EXACT OBVIOUSLY. I MEAN, THE STREETS DON'T RUN PERFECTLY EAST TO WEST OR NORTH TO SOUTH, BUT THEY WERE COMING IN THIS DIRECTION WALKING TOWARDS IN THE DIRECTION OF BUNDY (INDICATING). I WAS WALKING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION WALKING TOWARDS AMHURST.

# 110 Q:

SO THEY WERE WALKING NORTHEASTERLY AND YOU WERE WALKING SOUTHEASTERLY?

# 111 A:

I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT YOU'RE --

# 112 Q:

OKAY. ON THIS -- ON THE EXHIBIT THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THAT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER?

# 113 A:

I WAS WALKING -- IF THIS -- IF THIS MAP IS NORTH -- IS NORTH-SOUTH -- THERE'S NO LEGEND OR ANYTHING SAYING THIS IS NORTH-SOUTH OR ANYTHING, BUT --

# 114 MR. DOUGLAS:

THIS IS EXHIBIT NO. 26, CORRECT, FOR THE RECORD?

# 115 THE COURT:

YES.

# 116 Q:

BY MR. DOUGLAS: YOU WERE WALKING WHICH WAY; FROM LEFT TO RIGHT OR RIGHT TO LEFT?

# 117 A:

I WAS WALKING IN THIS DIRECTION DOWN THIS WAY (INDICATING).

# 118 Q:

FROM THE RIGHT TO THE LEFT ON EXHIBIT 26. AND THEY WERE WALKING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION?

# 119 A:

YES. THEY WERE WALKING THIS WAY (INDICATING).

# 120 Q:

NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THEY WERE WEARING?

# 121 A:

NO.

# 122 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WOMAN WAS WEARING PANTS OR A DRESS?

# 123 A:

NO.

# 124 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION WHETHER EITHER WORE GLASSES?

# 125 A:

UMM, I DON'T RECALL.

# 126 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION WHETHER EITHER WAS WEARING A JACKET?

# 127 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

# 128 Q:

ALL THAT YOU CAN RECALL IS THAT THEY WERE TWO CAUCASIAN INDIVIDUALS?

# 129 A:

YES. AND --

# 130 Q:

A MALE AND A FEMALE?

# 131 A:

AND THAT THEY WERE TOGETHER. THEY WERE WALKING TOGETHER.

# 132 Q:

WAS THERE ANYTHING DISTINCTIVE IN THE SPEECH PATTERNS OF EITHER SUCH AS AN ACCENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU COULD DISCERN?

# 133 A:

NOT THAT -- I DON'T RECALL, NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

# 134 Q:

AS YOU WERE WALKING TOWARDS THE -- UP BUNDY AND WALKING TOWARDS BUNDY -- I AM SORRY -- UP DOROTHY AND TOWARDS BUNDY, YOU HAD OCCASION TO NOTICE A DOG AHEAD OF YOU; DID YOU NOT?

# 135 A:

YES.

# 136 Q:

WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE DOG THAT CAUSED YOUR ATTENTION TO BE DRAWN TO THAT DOG? WAS IT JUST SEEING THE DOG FIRST?

# 137 A:

WELL, AT FIRST, I JUST SAW THE DOG STANDING THERE.

# 138 Q:

OKAY. AND HOW FAR AWAY WERE YOU FROM BUNDY --

# 139 A:

UH-HUH.

# 140 Q:

-- WHEN YOU FIRST NOTICED THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DOG?

# 141 A:

WELL, AS YOU SEE ON THE MAP, THERE'S THIS ALLEY HERE (INDICATING). I WAS PAST THAT. SO I WAS ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN THE ALLEY AND BUNDY WHEN I FIRST SPOTTED THE DOG.

# 142 Q:

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU WERE WALKING ON DOROTHY WALKING UP WEST OF GRETNA GREEN, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE DOG?

# 143 A:

NO.

# 144 Q:

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A DOG?

# 145 A:

NO.

# 146 Q:

YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANY SORT OF LONG WAIL?

# 147 A:

NOT THAT I RECALL.

# 148 Q:

AS YOU GOT TO GRETNA GREEN HEADING TOWARDS BUNDY, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE DOG?

# 149 A:

I AM SORRY?

# 150 Q:

AS YOU WERE AT GRETNA GREEN WALKING UP TOWARDS BUNDY, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE DOG THEN?

# 151 A:

NO.

# 152 Q:

YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANY SORT OF WAIL?

# 153 A:

NO.

# 154 Q:

WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ACTUAL ALLEYWAY WHERE THE ALLEY BISECTS DOROTHY, YOU DIDN'T SEE THE DOG?

# 155 A:

NOT AT THAT POINT.

# 156 Q:

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A DOG?

# 157 A:

NO. THE FIRST -- I FIRST SAW THE DOG.

# 158 Q:

SO YOUR FIRST ATTENTION TO THE DOG WAS SEEING IT AND NOT HEARING IT?

# 159 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 160 Q:

WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG, THE DOG WAS LOOKING IN THE WALKWAY OF THE HOME THAT IS ON THE CORNER OF BUNDY AND DOROTHY?

# 161 A:

NO.

# 162 Q:

WHAT WAS THE DOG DOING?

# 163 A:

IT WAS JUST STANDING AT THE CORNER.

KEY QUOTE

# 164 Q:

JUST STANDING DOING NOTHING?

# 165 A:

YES.

# 166 Q:

DID THE DOG APPEAR TO BE IN ANY DISTRESS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT?

# 167 A:

NO. IT WAS JUST STANDING THERE.

# 168 Q:

WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE DOG, DID YOU HAPPEN TO HEAR ANY OTHER DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BARKING?

# 169 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

# 170 Q:

YOU DON'T HAVE A PRESENT RECOLLECTION OF HEARING ANY OTHER DOGS AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU FIRST SAW THE AKITA?

# 171 A:

I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING ANY OTHER DOGS.

# 172 Q:

WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG, THE DOG DID NOT HAVE A LEASH?

# 173 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 174 Q:

WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG, YOU WALKED AND APPROACHED THE DOG HOLDING THE LEASH OF YOUR OWN DOG?

# 175 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 176 Q:

AND YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON WITH YOUR DOG SMELLING THE AKITA?

# 177 A:

YES. UH -- YES.

# 178 Q:

WHILE YOUR DOG WAS SMELLING THE AKITA, THE AKITA WAS NOT THEN BARKING, CORRECT?

# 179 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

# 180 Q:

BECAUSE THE AKITA AT SOME POINT BEGAN SMELLING YOUR DOG AS WELL, DIDN'T IT?

# 181 A:

THE AKITA DID SMELL MY DOG.

# 182 Q:

YOU'VE ESTIMATED THE TIME THAT YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY AND DOROTHY AS BEING 1055 IN THE EVENING.

# 183 A:

APPROXIMATELY.

# 184 Q:

WERE YOU WEARING A WATCH AT THAT TIME?

# 185 A:

YES, I WAS.

# 186 Q:

DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT YOUR WATCH OTHER THAN THE TIME WHEN YOU TURNED ON GRETNA GREEN?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Steven Schwab

I RECALL GIVING VARIOUS TIMES AND NOT BEING CLEAR EVEN AT THAT POINT OF WHAT TIME IT WAS. I DIDN'T SAY IT HAPPENED AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT. THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID.

Undermines the precision of the '11:15' timestamp in the police statement, weakening the prosecution's timeline anchor for when the dog was found.

Steven Schwab

SAYS 6-17-94.

The police interview record is dated June 17, four days after Schwab says the interview occurred — casting doubt on the reliability of the police documentation.

Steven Schwab

IT WAS JUST STANDING AT THE CORNER.

The dog appeared calm and undistressed when first spotted, which complicates narratives about the dog's behavior immediately after the murders.

Steven Schwab

I DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE PRIOR TO GETTING MY SUBPOENA FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

After Schwab called back to correct his earlier statement, no detective ever followed up — suggesting the police failed to properly investigate his correction.

Evidence (2)

Exhibit 26

Map of the neighborhood showing Bundy, Dorothy, Gorham, Gretna Green, and the alley — used to establish Schwab's walking route and where he first spotted the dog

discussed, witness indicated locations

Informal

One-page police statement of Schwab's interview, dated June 17, 1994 — shown to witness by Douglas

challenged; witness noted date discrepancy and misspelling of 'Bundy' as 'Dundy'

Notable Exchanges (3)

Carl Douglas•Steven Schwab

Douglas walks Schwab through each landmark on his route — Gretna Green, the alley bisecting Dorothy — confirming that at no point before the halfway mark to Bundy did Schwab see or hear the dog, and specifically that he did not hear any wailing before spotting it visually.

strategic

Carl Douglas•Steven Schwab

Douglas establishes that the police interview document is dated June 17 while Schwab maintains the interview was June 13, and that a 'Detective Roberts' named in the document is someone Schwab has no recollection of meeting.

revealing

Carl Douglas•Steven Schwab

Schwab admits he called 911 the next day to correct his earlier statement, but no officer ever came back to clarify — the correction simply disappeared into the system.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Police documentation

documentary inconsistency

Douglas shows Schwab a police statement dated June 17, 1994, four days after Schwab says the interview occurred on June 13; Schwab also notes 'Bundy' is misspelled as 'Dundy' in the document, and he has no memory of a 'Detective Roberts.'

⚔ Steven Schwab

prior inconsistent statement

Douglas highlights that the police statement records a specific '11:15' time for first seeing the dog, while Schwab testifies he gave approximate ranges (around 11:00, around 11:30) and never gave a precise time — suggesting either the statement is inaccurate or Schwab's recollection has shifted.

Witness Demeanor

(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.) — Schwab reads the one-page statement when shown it by Douglas

Witness is careful and hedging throughout, frequently qualifying answers with 'I don't know' and 'I don't recall'

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 4737 • 186 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103