Trial Rewatch | Menendez Brothers: Defense Expert Dr. Ann Burgess Part 4

[Music] hello hello and welcome to crime in court my name is Heather and we are re-watching the 1993 Mena Brothers trial they are on trial for the homicides of both of their parents Kitty and Jose Menendez they were both extremely extremely controlling and treated their boys very terribly and we are finding out now just just what the extent of that was we currently have on the stand Dr an Burgess who um she was a nurse she was a teacher she in she was instrumental here where are my notes she was instrumental in um sorry I know that's annoying she was instrumental in criminal profiling um she actually taught the FBI victimology because they were all concerned about the criminal and she had all of the information about the victims because she was working in healthcare and she knew those kinds of things she was recording statistics and learning the patterns between different victims of trauma and abuse so she was just she's basically uh one of the founding people who have um you know demonstrated their work in this area and um she's still alive at 87 years young and teaching nursing and uh what are her other uh classes I don't know she's got a bunch of different classes that she teaches that sound really cool we went over it in one of the streams um but like forensics and victimology and stuff she teaches so she's um I would have loved I would love to take one of her classes all right so let's dive in here um I'm going to shrink myself and we will pick up there we go pick up right where we left off and um so now we're going into cross-examination so we left off on part three she talked a lot about the um controlling aspects and the parent and child Dynamic and how it affects one's development growing up so that was part three now this is part four and she uh well well at the end of part three they did like a Vader and uh it was basically to get it was without the jury and it was to see if she could testify to Kitty and Jose's mental health due to you know having reviewed their records and using it as part of her uh evaluation yet the judge doesn't want her to talk about it for some reason so he he did not let that in other to than to make maybe say did you look at her did you look at Kitty's mental health records and did it have a did you um consider them when you made your uh determinations basically is the only thing that they can ask about it so here we are now cross examination and oh wait I think we're starting with cross exam hold on but I don't see reason to consume any more time with this witness on the subject all right anything else now before the jury comes in I don't have anything else all right well have the jury come in and um then we'll proceed okay let's give Council a short break let's make it okay let's make it five minutes and then we'll proceed yes are you familiar with the information contain in this report in question question are you familiar with the report which describes an incident with Craig heinberg same objection right an interview with Mr heinberg is that it yes are you familiar with a police report which describes an interview with Mr heinberg which describes an incident objection your honor overall yes I am did you take the information in that police report into account in evaluating Eric Mendez yes I did and did you discard the information contained in that report I didn't discard it I took it into consideration in the total picture did you take into consideration the theft the grand theft and the burglaries in calabases yes I did and did you have any opinion as to how the grand theft and the burglaries in calabases affected Eric mendez's me State form question W and one all right with that modification you may answer the question yes I did take it into consideration and and what did you find what did I find I found that there was certainly a serious problem uh in this family did you think there was a problem with Mr Eric Mendez as a result of your review of the information I felt it was a problem for the whole family uh not just Eric Mendez but he was part of the family that you found a problem with is that correct that is correct and did you find that there was any kind of sphere response which went into his Commission of the Grand Theft and the burglary in Calabasas no I did not evaluated in that context U and did you think that he was reacting to his neurobiological changes when he went into the two homes and took property belonging to others object to form the question itates the fact regarding Grand over it was taken the the that was taken in context with also with outcome Etc in terms of a family issue in which it it had significance for the family regarding the um any of the fear response no I did not see that present all right and did you notice the type of property which was taken in the second incident that is the burglary of the Ginsburg home I was aware of that yes and you were aware it was a great deal of property is that correct yes how would you classify that particular crime would it be disorganized or organized I'm going and the legal basis of the objection you may remember the boys started acting out and breaking and entering into homes around their Calabasas area or wherever they were Bly Hills I'm not sure but wherever it was they were living at the time but they uh got in trouble because they got caught uh breaking and entering into people's homes and stealing things so that was obviously a clear cry for help from boys a teenage you know teenage boys acting out in that way there's something wrong proper opinion with respect to a veral over I don't have that type of information what I do know is that material was returned that it certainly was symptomatic of other issues and that's how I evaluated those two particular events did you consider them to be criminal well they were handled as I understand in a juvenile manner so that they were handled through a a legal system and that he was given probation and he was required or he did guess it was not necessarily required but he did seek um counseling for that and it was within a family context all right but did you regard that behavior as criminal well the behavior was dealt with in a legal way so that it certainly did impart that but that U whether I would consider it that I certainly consider it symptomatic of a larger issue now did you consider the calabases theft and burglary in your evaluation of Eric men's state of mind on the night of August the 20th of 1989 it was certainly a factor when I looked at all of the information that was available to me in evaluating what happened on August 20th now if the information given to you by Eric Mendez was untrue does that change your opinion as to a state of mind objection you're AR overall could you repeat that please my question if the information given to you by Eric mandz was untrue does that change your opinion as to a state of mind on the night that he killed his parents well I did not determine it as untrue I I would have to be given considerable evidence to sight for me to Bas that it was untrue well did you review Eric Mendes's testimony in front of the juries about his purchase of the handguns yes uh didn't it was not a handgun assistant rephr the question his attempt to purchase handguns at a Big Five in Santa Monica did you review that test yes I did review that and what was your opinion of whether or not he was telling the truth in that testimony I'm going object to that people objected when I asked wait counc let's not argue the matter I objection Su in evaluating Eric menz's truth-telling ability to you did you consider what he said on the witness stand to these to this jury and the other jury about attempting to purchase handguns on the afternoon of the 18th of August of 1989 yes I consider that and did you reject that as indicating that he was lying to you about anything no I did not did you consider that might have been lying to you I cons no I did not consider why would he admit to something like that if he were uh if it was not true that he went out to look for that he and his brother went to purchase handguns he did not have to say that well you are aware of the fact that the prosecution is in possession of gunshot purchase records from San Diego from later in the evening of the 18th of August of 1989 correct yes I am and you understand that that particular evidence could be interpreted as showing planning on the part of the defendants oh I don't see that as planning if he was really going to plan something why not wait the two weeks when he would have a weapon that was uh the more logical weapon to have if he was planning something well you are aware of the fact that either before or after the killings the defendants came up with an alibi correct they had a series of statements yes and you are aware of the fact that in order for an alibi to work a Time needs to be established for a criminal activity yes right so in other words if I have an alibi but no one can determine when the crime occurred The Alibi is pretty worthless yes but by the same token an alibi is supposed to work and this certainly did not work I mean they could have backed up everything so it would work I mean I think that's the point that that alibi did not work if if you want to consider it as an alibi um so are you saying because The Alibi didn't work it wasn't planned what I'm saying is that was a social plan that was in place and it didn't work because of what happened immediately before that social plan was to put be put into place which was going to a movie and doing the rest of the activities that they had planned for that Sunday evening okay you believed Eric Mendez when he talked to you is that correct yes okay now um in order for an alibi to work someone has to know what time the crime occurred aside from the killer correct I think at this point we're call declaration it goes to the witnesses State of Mind as far as her explanations of be sense you understand the question yes and one way to notify people that a crime has occurred is to make noise correct yes and in fact in this case the neighbors were able to pin the time of the crime in a period of about 10 minutes that is correct okay one witness said it was a 10an one said approximately 10:00 okay yes I read that so that in order for someone to have an alibi which is effective somebody would have to know that the crime occurred at a particular time let's say 10:00 or 1010 on the night of August the 20th correct all right yes and noise would be one way to accomplish that correct yes noise yes now you indicated that The Alibi was not successful is that correct yes okay and what does that mean to you that it wasn't successful well what that means to me is that it wasn't planned that a plan means something is going to be carried off successfully Dr Burgess you are familiar with um criminal activity because of your research with the FBI yes I am plenty of criminals get caught who' planned wouldn't you agree I'm going to object to this now as argumentative overall I'm sorry um plenty of criminals get caught who plan their crimes correct I don't know how many get caught who plan their crime are you aware of an incident in I think it was the early ' 80s when President Carter sent the military into Iran to Res captives in Iran are you familiar I'm going to object to this aser Dr bur just the fact that a plan doesn't work doesn't mean it wasn't planned I'm going to this also this is all been asked to answer the previous round of cross examination to some extent it has but I'll give the prosecution limited Le weight in this area overall I basically believe that a plan is supposed to work that in this case where there is the there the explanation is that it's a social plan that's already in place what happens is an intervening aspect of this and so the plan does not work if the plan was to work everything would have been backed up so it would have worked there was what contraindication for these shootings to have occurred earlier in the in the evening so that then the plan if it was a plan would be to go to the movies and go and meet these other people etc etc if the information that Eric mandez gave to you about having been sexually molested was untrue would that change your opinion as to whether or not he' been sexually molested well that's one of the factors I look at is to weigh the uh information that I have that's precisely what one does when one renders a an opinion now are you familiar with an instrument called a culos scope yes I am okay and what is a culos scope ccope is a magnifying instrument that takes pictures of certain areas of the body and those pictures or photographs can then be examined by the persons okay and colposcopes are often used in child molest investigations to search for physical indicia of of molestation is that correct coun testifying this is beje over rule that is correct now in cases of sodomy are there instances in which sodomy will leave anal scarring there may be instances where that occurs yes it is rare is it not that is my understanding of the literature yes now you are a nurse is that correct that is correct are you entitled to do physical examinations because you're a nurse I do not have a nurse practitioner advanced practice um certification for sexual assault exams but you have on prior occasions examined children to see if they've been sexually assaulted is that correct I'm Che the question is veg what you mean referring to physical examinations no you have on prior occasions conducted psychological evaluations of children to see if they've been sexually abused correct yes I have are you ever provided with information from medical doctors as to whether or not there are any physical findings to corroborate the child's claim of abuse yes I am is that one thing you ask for in evaluating the truthfulness of a child's claim of child abuse well it's one piece of information that generally is available in the records If the child has been seen within a fairly recent time of the uh abuse now would it be fair to say that not all child abuse Le physical findings yes that that's true oral population for example unless unless you get to the child right away will not leave any physical findings correct well unless also there's been injury to the throat that would also provide a little bit of latitude in terms of time yeah did you ask for any examination to be done of Eric Mendez to corroborate um his claim to you of sexual abuse my understanding is that there was going to be um material uh specific to to that that that was not something I was to do all right were you ever did you ever ask for that information before you concluded your examination of him psychologically um yes were you provided with that information no I don't not have the report but you went ahead and made your conclusion without having the report correct yes I did all right so you have no present knowledge sitting here today as to whether or not there are any physical finings to corroborate what you have found psychologically is that correct uh essentially yes okay but you were informed that such an exam was going to be done is that correct um yes and as you sit here today in October of 1993 have you ever inquired as to the results of that physical exam uh yes all right and were you told the results of that exam uh was a discussion about we've just been discussing about how difficult it is to corroborate or to even find certain findings in a person a length of time after the abuse okay my question is were you given any information about any results of physical exams done to Eric Mendez to corroborate his child abuse at this point I'm going to object as a call for objection I do not have that information did you well I I told you we talked about it but I don't have any report did you have an oral report from someone that there were or were not such findings available this time all right you so Dr Burgess were you made aware at any time prior to today's date of the results of a physical examination of Eric Mendez not specifically were you generally made aware of the results of the exam yes and what general information did you have well the general information is it's very difficult to determine uh scarring anal scarring um so much time had elapsed so that in the general area that supported what I also would have suspected given the literature if there had been anal scarring that would have enhanced your opinion that he had been in fact sexual abuse correct oh well yes okay now my question to you is were you in general given the results of the exam this has been she hasn't answered it uh did you get the results of the exam as far as whether or not any scarring or other physical evidence was found uh no I don't have any specific report from the person that has done the exam I don't have any official direct information since you knew there was a physical exam being done did you think it was important to try to discover the results of the exam before you rendered your opinion in this courtroom well as I said there was a general discussion about that that um satisfied my question and F I felt I could render an opinion so is your answer yes you found out the results before you rendered your opinion or no you did not find out the results before you rended your opinion what I found out supported what both is in the literature and what um is my understanding what the testimony May well be I just don't have anything direct was there a reason you didn't seek out the direct results is my understanding there was no report available at the time I asked did you ask for an oral report no did you ask to speak to the doctor who conducted the exam no aside from speaking to Eric Mendez and the doctors whose names you've given to us who else did you speak to person to person either on the phone or in person about the facts of this case um I spoke to uh the family members which family members did you speak to I to the Two Sisters of Jose Menendez and I spoke to the sister of Mary Louise and that was Joan vanderen that's correct did you speak to Mary louiz menendez's Brothers Milton and Brian no I did not did you speak to Eric mendez's paternal grandmother Maria no I did not when you spoke to Marta when was that um that was as recent I think it was about two weeks ago at the time that you spoke to Marta cono were you aware of the testimony that she gave in this courtroom I'm going to approach um before the next question is asked well since we don't know what that question is I'm not going to first of all let me hear an answer to this question I've read the testimony yes okay were you aware of her testimony in regards to a lie she had told for Kitty Mendez to her husband to avoid to avoid her getting in trouble do you remember her testimony in that regard I believe I do do you remember her testimony that it wasn't any big thing and that she would do the same for me a person she didn't know oh um I don't remember that part okay would that change your opinion as to The credibility of Marta cono if you knew that she had made that testimony well it was in the testimony okay and you read it I read it and you discarded it well I it's not a matter of discarding or including I've read all the testimony and it's sifted and weighed through the whole procedure uh it was a it was a piece of information that was available are you aware of what the Rosen hand study is yes did you consider the Rosen hand study and evaluating The credibility of the information you were given so wait a minute because uh Mar cono lied only to protect Kitty so that kitty didn't get in trouble from Jose that makes her not a credible Witness it's Kitty who asked her to lie because she lied one time for someone who asked her to do so that makes her not credible okay in this case no that's a very different type of situation not at all analogous to this situation did you consider that the possibilities that are outlined in the rosenan study in evaluating the Witnesses in this case well again I didn't specifically do it because that's a study that was um done many years ago and it just so happens I read it many years ago so I to ask me to even think about it is is uh testing my long-term memory well I did ask you about two days ago when you were in the audience have you were familiar with the Rosen hand study and since that time have you thought about the Rosen hand study and it's applicability to this case well that's what I said I have tested my long-term memory to see what I did remember about it because I read it so long ago okay and what is your understanding of what the rosenan is objection you're not rely on uh did you rely upon that study and making any in this case no I did not no I did not objection did you CH did you choose to ignore the things discussed in the Rosen hand study and your evaluation of this case proper question overall did you choose to ignore it I didn't even think about it I I really um as I said until to my attention I had thought about it in probably 10 years are you familiar with the book I'm holding up as the dsm3 yes I am are you familiar with the concept of mingering uh as identified in there yes I am all right you were here when I was cross-examining Dr Tyler were you not yes I was and you were here when I read this to Dr Tyler yes I was without reading it again did you consider the possibility mingering in your evaluation of Eric Mendez and what he was telling you about what had happened to him I always consider those factors in any evaluation I do and in considering lingering did you also consider his testimony in regards to the um attempt to purchase handguns at the Big Five Sporting Goods store in Santa Monica J ask uh yes okay and did you see any correlation between what he told the juries about his attempts to purchase handgun and the concept of mingering as is defined in this book no I didn't see any um evidence of of those factors under mingering have you ever driven the route that Eric mandz and his brother say they took after they killed their parents no I I have not driven the route I'm not sure I could find that route I'm you a lot of people can't find that route all right well you mean just drive the freeway no I'm talking about driving from the home to Sentry City back to Century City up to Mand and cold water back to Beverly Hills and into um Santa Monica have you driven that route no I have not why the hell would she need to have driven that route or route as I pronounce it like a normal person why the heck would she have needed to do that she's an expert in child abuse and Trauma why would she need to recreate the the day of the event that the boys did you know like that doesn't make any sense you're asking her a question question that is for law enforcement where they should be doing that not your child's trauma experts I'm going to object if there's any questions that are going to be answer to that specific for no Foundation all right objection we'll have to wait until there's another question now you understand that um the neighbors place the time of the crime due to their hearing the shotgun noises at between 10 and 1010 on the night in question yes that is my understanding and you understand as well that at 11:07 p.m. that same night there was a phone call made on Mr men's credit card which L Menendez has admitted that he made from the Santa Monica Civic to his friend Perry Burman yes I'm aware of that so you're familiar with the time period between 10 p.m. and 11:07 yes I am are you also familiar with the testimony of um ly Mendez in regards to what he did during that period of time yes I am did you ever in your evaluation uh consider the possibility that what he said they did could not have occurred in the 67 minutes I'm going to object to that assum facts not evence over did you consider that possibility Dr burus in the time element um no I did not consider in specifically in the AM amount of time it takes and I didn't see that in any police reports recreating that well until the defendants Testify the police didn't know where the defendants said they went after the crime correct sustain got suain Dr Burgess are you familiar with the concept of suggest ability as it relates to child molest victims yes I am and would you tell the jury what suggestibility is suggestibility is a concept that is introduced uh that says very young children uh in the questioning by law enforcement or investigative persons or therapists in some way conduct their interview so as to suggest to the child uh a response and that's that concept of suggestibility can lead to false accusations of child abuse correct well that's in a very that's never been really uh carefully uh reviewed it certainly is suggested in the literature that that's one thing that happens did you ever do any studies on the MCM Martin preschool case Dr burges No any studies yeah did you well did you ever read any studies about the McMartin preschool case I talked to people but I didn't study it did you have any interest in the MCM Martin case I'm going to check this is irrelevant now the concept is suggestibility then is according to your definition the idea that very young children can be led into saying things that are untrue would that be correct I'm not saying that they're untrue but they can be suggested um because of the way the child's uh thinking patterns are very young children that it can be introduced and the child will agree with it why is it that a very young child then would um be susceptible to suggestibility because of their memory development now do you think an adult facing criminal charges would be open to the notion of suggestibility objection speculation your proper opinion over um I I'm not aware of studies on an older population that has really looked at that and suggestibility in this type of situation there may be experimental studies but I'm not aware of of any um clinical studies when was your first contact with Eric Mendez August of 1992 so approximately 15 months ago is that correct yes that's correct did you ever ask for any psychiatric uh reports for him from any other psychological experts who had either examined him or who had treated him well there were all of there were a lot of records that came in from the school department I had those um now you indicated you spoke with Dr vicory yes did you ever get any a report from Dr vicory well we discussed his findings so I did not get a report no I have not seen a report so in L of a written report there was a verbal report to you is that correct that is correct did you ever ask to see the records of Dr oil um I have seen certainly all of his testimony and I have seen material that's been introduced here in court are you have you seen any other grand jury yes have you seen any other uh Records or notes of Dr oil I'd like to approach on this objection request did you ever see any other notes or records from Dr aside from the things that were testified to here in court well I've seen those those materials um printed out are you saying that you saw a print out of the um cassette that he made for those two sessions yes I believe that's what I've seen yes are you aware of the fact that Eric Mendez was undergoing treatment by Dr oil prior to the killings of his parents yes I to the form of the question assumes the fact not in evidence that what was happening over objection over did you ever ask to speak with Dr oil about Eric Mendes's visits to him prior to his parents killings no I did not why not I'm going relevant I just didn't didn't you consider it important to talk to the olist who was treating him at or near the time of his parents deaths uh no given that I had a lot of material that was already available through many pages of of transcripts but a psychological the notes or the an interview with a therapist who was treating him at the time of the killings of his parents would maybe give you some insight into his State of Mind objection argument state to the for of the question do you think that a psychologist who was treating him at or near the time of his parents death would be able to provide you with insight into Eric Mendes's State of Mind preceding his parents killings well depends on the type of notes and my understanding were these are reconstructed notes so that I'm not sure that that would um provide the very best of understanding it was matal that was available well who gave you the material the material was testified to okay who gave you the other material that wasn't testified to well that was that was given to me by defense you mean in terms of the transcriptions and so forth that was all provided to me did you ever ask them to give you any information that had not been provided to you no they gave me all information as far as I knew that that I could see that would be helpful to me so I feel I have seen all that I need to see regarding uh Dr oil and his interaction with the defendant and so you never sought to either get notes from Dr or interview him is that correct I don't think that's what I'm saying I don't see I didn't see the need to call him and talk to him that's correct but you thought that the information from the sisters and the siblings of Mr and Mrs Menendez was of importance and you spoke with them directly correct that is true okay but you chose not to speak to Dr oil but I had a lot of materials I don't think that I was excluded from a lot of material that I was able to review regarding his um regarding him were you ever told that you could not have access to Dr oil no oh to Dr oil no I believe you indicated that you testified in the past about 20 to 30 times to the prosecution is that correct yes have you testified for the defense before yes and and how many occasions have you testified for the defense I believe about five or 10 to 10 times have you ever examined a child and found that that child um was not in fact in your opinion the victim of sexual abuse even though the child claimed to have been oh yes and I have written on that all right and what what was it what things do you look for in assessing whether or not um a child is telling the truth or let me back up what do you look for in assessing whether or not the child has been abused look for the same things that I've already described you look for consistency you look for with small children you look for symptoms you would look for any type of corroborating evidence you look at um the background history if you have any information on the named um abuser you look at that um all of those factors um and when you've interviewed children and found them not to be uh telling the truth to you about having been abused um what went into your determination that those children had not been confused what into my determination that there was more to what is being stated and so that we took a position of trying to inquire more into the story and to see why indeed the statement was made and we would usually try to complete that part of our inquiry so that we were satisfied and we could then because it tended to be in a treatment situation we could make the right uh type of treatment or recommend the right kind of treatment because if a child claims to have been abused and hasn't been abused the child still needs some sort of treatment correct yes that's what they're generally coming for now you've indicated that one of the things you consider is why the statement was made are you talking about the statement of the self-report of abuse well it would be the whole statement of the situation that that the evaluation contains okay one of the things you look at for instance is in a child custody battle whether or not the child might be fabricating child abuse in order to go with one parent or another well that yes child custody situations tend to have the higher rate of um what is called the false accusation okay what about someone who's incarcerated for murder do you think that person might have a reason to make a false accusation of chaliz Aral well again that's the context and that's something that that we did talk about yesterday is that does play an important role in sifting and sorting the information that one has presented given as much as we can I am able to gather how many adult children uh right how many people accused of murder have you interviewed for claims of child abuse well there was one study that we looked at I think are you asking how many do she I'm asking you how many you personally have done I think the question do you understand the question uh no do you mean how many times have you talked to someone who's incarcerated for murder and claims to have been physically psychologically or sexually abused as a child well there are two two parts there one we have data on juveniles and have published on that but the second of all that I personally have talked to um I can think of uh two as juveniles okay two aside from this case right directly but again there's been I've been involved in a study that really looked at juveniles who have um they were incarcerated for murder well Eric mandz is not a juvenile would you agree with that well juvenile correct at given California I understand California's laws juvenile usually goes by the state as to the age the age of majority in the United States is 18 yes correct correct and you heard me ask this of Dr Tyler we draft young men of the age of 18 correct for question is argum I don't think we draft anybody anymore either so let's ask way we sent 18year olds to die for their country correct that we don't do that either all right rephrase the question it is argumentative Eric mandz is not a Jen correct correct and you've given a lot of testimony about children who are abused correct correct but when you interviewed him he was not a child correct legally that's correct in fact he was almost 22 years old when you interviewed him that's correct and he was in custody yes and he was charged with murder that is correct now since the early 80s has there been a great deal of literature published about child abuse yes and is one of the uh Watershed events that occurred to trigger that generation of literature the MCM Martin case going to object again to ref to the MCM Martin case unless council's role in that case Council why do you have to make a speech you have an objection the objection is argumentative objection overrule I'm objecting to refence objection overr is that one of the things that occurred that is one of the um publicized cases he is so not equal the way that he treats Miss Abramson versus everybody else it's like he likes to fight with her or something he likes to say no to her and he likes to argue with her it's really kind of concerning that occurred that's correct and is it your understanding that there is a great deal of literature now available that was not available prior to the early ' 80s on the issue of child sexual abuse yes but that's not because of of one particular case it's because more cases are being reported correct so there's more to study so there's therefore more to public people are starting to talk about it now it's been kept in the closet for so long people are starting to express how they feel and what's been going on to them and now we're learning from that so so there's Publications where we can learn from past experiences of others now how many different journals are there in existence in the psychological field which deal with the issue of child abuse and I'm talking about generic child abuse I know of one that specifically deals with the generic and it's called child abuse and neglect all right are there any other journals that deal with interf Family Violence yes and what's the name of that journal that's the Journal of interpersonal violence are there any other journals aside from that one which deal with issues such as child abuse there is the Journal of child sexual abuse now do any of these journals contain articles which give specific anecdotes about specific cases generally not in those journals they tend to be uh peer-reviewed for its scientific Merit and there tends to be a reluctance to put in details other than statistical details are there Publications available in the in the public realm which deal with the issue of child abuse and give detailed anecdotes about specific cases of child abuse the question is V what public real over yes uh again the journals I just identified would not I would not consider in the public realm it's in the professional realm um so if you're expanding it to public um I doubt the public would really have access to those journals unless they were going to go to a library to research but if one were a citizen and went to the library to research one could find those journals correct only if they have the the library subscribed to that so if the library subscribed to the journal and one wanted to go look at them one could correct I'm well doesn't call for speculation but it's not relevant to obje statement Dr burges are there books which are published which deal specifically with anecdotes about child abuse which are available in the public realm object against the question called speculation uh there are books that can be purchased through the public realm which contain specific anecdotes about incidences of child abuse correct well that I don't know because I don't tend to read those books but I I really don't know how much anecdotal material is contained in those type of books Dr burges if a person wanted to convince you that they had been sexually abuse one of the things that you would find persuasive would be the amount of detail you were given correct objection argumentative and cause for speculation about what other person want overall well detail is one of the criteria that one does take into consideration in the evaluation of a statement is it possible for a person to fabricate that kind of detail well for a person to do that they would almost have to have a personal reference library uh to be able to search out that kind of a material now you indicated that detail was something that you found to be important in assessing The credibility of Eric Mendez correct yes okay and so they're trying to say that the boys went and like sought out this information so they could learn how to fake it I don't think so nice nice try though Pam bazan did you do any kind of psychological testing of arendes I was not asked him no I did not did you view any psychological testing of arendes that others had done I haven't seen any specific uh testing done well in evaluating his State of Mind did you consider it important to see any psychological testing that had been done no I did not consider that I needed that did you ever diagnose ER as having any kind of um mental disorder or mental disease no I did not and in fact he doesn't not have such mental disorder or disease is that correct that is my opinion yes all right but it's your opinion that he had some sort of condition similar to post-traumatic stress disorder is that correct uh no not necessarily that we were talking more about the fear response um I would not I did not give a diagnosis of of what you just said all right so you didn't diagnose them with any kind of disorder or defect or disease is that correct that's correct and you cannot test him for this neurological recoding correct that is correct now um in evaluating Eric Mendez I believe you indicated that it was your opinion that based upon the abuse that you had as a child that the fear response would have uh influenced him on the night of his parents killings correct that is correct did you consider how the fear response worked after the killings in the formulation of The Alibi and the statements of the police I considered how the fear response worked after the shootings yes that was a major consideration did you consider it significant that after this extremely traumatic event that Eric Mendez and his brother were able to go back into the room and pick up the shelves I consider that yes and did you have any psychological explanation for how they were able to do that if they were working on autopilot well that is one of the post crime types of behavior that we did talk about and there are two explanations for that one we've already discussed of picking up that but these are decisions that I believe are made after the initial the shootings so that one is to pick up the uh guns and the shotgun shells uh a second reason is because that is a very um they they didn't want those there what that reminded them of it certainly reminded them of what had happened did you consider the possibility that they had decided in advance of the crime to pick up the shotgun shells um I I entertain that because one does that's one looks at in terms of looking at Behavior Uh what was described to me uh matches much more in terms of the exhaustion the waiting for the police wondering why the police didn't come with the enormous amount of noise that was made Etc when that didn't happen then there was a yeah cuz remember the boys had said that they thought if like as soon as they did it the cops would be coming because somebody would have heard the the gunshots and come to the house or called the police and the police would have come to the house so they were just kind of like after the fact sitting around and like waiting they didn't know that you know people were going to ignore it people thought it was fireworks or you know firecrackers or something they weren't exactly sure and I don't know nobody called but they heard it people heard it just didn't call the police new um behavior that went into play and that's the post crime behavior that we've talked about did you consider the statement that Eric Manas gave to Sergeant Edmonds at approximately 1:20 a.m. on the morning of the 21st of August of 1989 yes I consider all the statements that were made by Eric Mendez to the police to be highly important and significant regarding the fear response okay was Eric Mendez in fear when he told the police that he gone to see Batman at the Century 14 Theaters uh no not on that statement were there other statements in here in which he was in fear there are other statements that indeed speak to his truthfulness and placing him at the scene of the crime and you're saying that he intentionally told the police that it is my belief that he's being very honest at that on all of those occasions that that comes through all right but he wasn't honest about where he'd been there even correct that is the one untrue statement that is consistently made that they do go botha's brother go to see a Batman movie at the time of the crime and he correct well I don't know whether it's that precise in terms of time I I don't believe that they I know that that's the statement they made I want to back up to your testimony about um his sexual abuse you've indicated that there were certain symptoms that you saw in arendas which led you to the conclusion or which supported his statement that he was actually was correct yes and those symptoms were things such as um stomach aches and crime and behavior such as that yes can you distinguish in looking at stomach aches and crime whether they're caused by physical abuse sexual abuse or psychological abuse no and in fact um psychological abuse will will cause stomach aches and crime as well as sexual abuse correct yes so the fact that he had those symptoms does not mean that he was sexually abuse that is true it is merely corative of some type of abuse yes and they're just really described as general anxiety symptoms okay and a child can have so it's okay if they psychologically abuse their kids but it's not okay to essay them is that what her argument is like what regardless of whether it's psychological emotional me you know whatever kind of abuse they're going to have similar symptoms you even if it's physical or not physical you can still have similar symptoms and the fact that she's just kind of minimized the whole yeah you can psychologically abuse your kids no problem just uh stay away from them physically I guess those anxiety symptoms without even being abused can't that is true in fact if a child is nervous about a test or nervous about an event a stomach ache might be something very probable to find yes in um examining Eric Mendez and the detail that he gave you in discussing his uh crime did you ever do a uh a psychological history of Eric Mendez and another words did you take a history of him for purposes of evaluating yes I took a history of him did you ask him any questions about his sexuality yes and um did you receive any information from him about his sexuality yes and did you consider that information in deciding whether or not the detail he gave you came from a source other than his father I took that into consideration and did you uh reject the notion that he could have uh gotten this information from someone aside from his father Yes I did reject that and why was that because of the information he gave me there's no other history right and so you accepted as true what he told you about his sexual history is that correct yes I did now one of the other symptoms which I think you indicated you might see in a child who had been abused generically uh were outbursts at school is that correct yes you found no such evidence in this case did you of outbursts at school U these are usually in young children no I did not find any history of outburst at school all right and you indicated well you when you say it's something in young children you examined his school records from the time of preschool till High School correct yes right and you found no such evidence correct that's right you indicated that um there were problems with his I think you said the his grades which was indicative to you that perhaps it were it was corroborative of his statements well one of the yes one of the uh the lack of concentration and the uh which was described both by school teachers coaches is uh yes I did consider that the lack of concentration could you say that that was attributable to psychological sexual or physical abuse could you say which form of abuse that would be attributable to no you can but it is a symptom okay and his grades and his um performance in school did you ever consider that that his Pro performance was attributable to his hectic tennis schedule no it was attributed to his performance anxiety and the enormous pressure that he felt under well so you didn't consider the fact that he was playing tennis all the time and didn't have time to perform in school well that is pressure that comes from the parents that put this pressure on him to do it because they're the ones that responsible for driving him around and making sure he's where he's supposed to be but even without parental pressure with the schedule that he had of sports would you expect him to be able to uh maintain Straight A's objection relative question rephrase a question okay did you consider the fact that his performance in school was in part attributable to the fact that he was concentrating on Athletics rather than academics well no as he said he was concentrating as much as he could on academics and um as well as on Sports and with given his IQ um it it is a little curious that he didn't perform better when you say his IQ um what do you mean are you aware of what his IQ is uh my understanding is he's certainly in in the average to Bright range okay and he would be bright enough to uh memorize or um repeat a tale about himself that wasn't true isn't he you're argumentative over he is isn't he well he's I I will say he's certainly of of average intelligence and um how people memorize things usually recall he he Poss no I'm not going to say that I have any any evidence of that in terms of his memory and and reciting things I think he tried to do that in one of his courses and had difficulty are you familiar with the testimony of his teacher from Beverly Hills High School that he recited a soliloquy from I think it was Richard II right that is the one that he had an opportunity to do it over to her and are you familiar with the fact that Eric Mendez had aspirations of becoming an actor he enjoyed drama lessons I know that that was um something cited in the material okay and his do you are you saying that his um intelligence is not sufficient to memorize lines or scenes sufficient to become an actor I'm going to object to this it goes beyond her expertise and it takes to be active s your pH a question did you consider his intelligence and his and his acting in evaluating the truthfulness of the information that he gave you about what had happened to him I took that into consideration yes did you reject those yes essentially have you ever done any studies on families um where the children are raised to be sports stars like tennis stars or ice skating Champions or things like that no have you ever read any studies about those kinds of families and what sacrifices they make no I believe you indicated one of the other things that you found significant is the family was a none of that is relevant because she's an abuse expert she evaluated him his history everything all the reports and she has concluded that he was abused so I don't know I mean it's pretty clear from what we've sat through so far for this trial it's pretty clear that the boys were abused secretive family is that correct yes that's correct are all families that are secretive families where sexual abuse goes on no now the um the things and the symptoms the details that Eric M has told you and the symptoms that you saw on him were not uni unque would that be fair to say no they're common that there are symptoms that are commonly seen in abused children so they're not unique per se they fit a pattern so if I came to you and told you that I had been sexually molested you would expect detail from me correct not necessarily it depends on the person's age it depends on how recent the event was and you have to take a lot of other factors into consideration when you're looking at memory but if I gave you detail you would find it corroborative of the truth of what I was telling you correct that's one of the factors one looks at yes and if I were to read literature about child abuse I could tell you that I was having nightmares correct this is argumentative and there's no Foundation as to the form of the question okay Dr bur's nightmares is a classic there's no evidence that the boys were trying to memorize these symptoms or that they looked these symptoms up and then they went and tried to pretend that this was what they had there's no evidence of that so I don't know how she can speculate that but okay symptom of child abuse correct it yes it's one of the symptoms sumach AES are classic symptom of chal is that correct these are general anxiety symptoms that's what has to be looked at is that they can also be found in other popul but it does point to some stress or something some anxiety that's existing and if I um were going to tell you that I had been abused then you the presence of those types of things would be corroborative is that correct well not necessarily you have to look at many more things and that's what I'm trying to say is you just don't take one bit of information you have to put it in in the total picture I gave you details of specific instances I told you at Nightmares I told you that I had stomach aches that would be corroborative of my claim that I've been abused correct it would be one factor that I would look at I'd also look at your affect and how you motion how you told it a lot of other aspects now I take it and I've asked you this uh previously but you did review the testimony of Eric Mendez when he was cross-examined by Mr cama about purchasing the handguns correct and answered and again M Stakes the evidence right attempting to PCH purchase handguns yes yes and you found that testimony to be credible is that correct yes and if they do not sell handguns at the Big Five Sporting Goods store do you still find that to be credible yes I do did you see the detail into which Mr Menendez went in describing the weapon that he had chosen to purchase yes and did you consider that to be a lie no I did not consider that to be a lie the detail did you consider that there would be would have been no discussion at the big five about a 14-day waiting period for a weapon they did not sell counil argument argument rep the question did you think to yourself gee how could he have gone to buy a handgun and been told there was a 14-day waiting period for something that they didn't carry did you think that to yourself right objection to Dr Burgess why is it that you found that particular testimony to be explicable as credible the reason I found that to be credible is that first of all it didn't have to be revealed second of all the peripher that's a peripheral detail if you will the name of the store is a peripheral detail from the intent which was stated to purchase a handgun or to purchase a weapon so given the fact that it was volunteered when it didn't have to be volunteered and as noted in term the second being peral detail but even more important I think is the record from the Louis school that says that he has a difficulty certainly at age 15 with dysnomia which is a tendency not to remember the state the right name and so forth those were the factors that went into my decision to believing that he went to a store to purchase with the intent to purchase a handgun for protection does dis nomia cause one to hear things that aren't said it's the naming of something I was talking about the name of the store right my question is does does disia cause a person to hear things that are not said what I don't know does disia cause you to lie objection your honest argumented over dysnomia has a tendency to for the person not to name the correct store in this case um Dr bures do you consider it significant in looking at planning activity that weapons are purchased in advance of the crime it depends on the intent of purchasing a weapon if one is intending to kill someone do you consider it important that weapons were purchased in advance of the crime in a hypothetical if that's the intent of purchasing a a gun right would you expect someone who was trying to avoid responsibility to try to explain away the purchase of guns prior to a homicide well I think there is an explanation for why the guns were purchased but if the explanation is untrue that doesn't negate the purchase of the weapons objection argumentative the question is I think OB Dr burges you said that one thing that convinced you that Eric mandz was telling the truth about attempting to purchase handguns is that he didn't have to reveal it correct yes do you consider that he might have to explain why hand why shotguns were purchased the night two nights before the murders yes did you consider that was something that he had to explain away in this trial in order to avoid um any signs of planning well it would be a question that would be asked and did you also understand that The Alibi that was set up in the afternoon of the 20th of August also had to be explained away objection your H that ass not that's AR over um I think I've said I don't see that as an effective plan doesn't didn't work Dr burges just because plan doesn't work doesn't mean it as aneffective plan argument and that's been asked six times overall rephrase the question however as far as the way it's phrased not as to is being repetitive Dr bures did you consider that in this particular case there were two pieces of evidence that would have to be explained Away by the defendants the purchase of the guns and the contact with Perry Burman prior to the murders well those are two factors yes and those are two factors which could hypothetically show premeditation couldn't they they might be construed that way yes they might be construed that way yes it depends on which Theory you are operating under and why the person is purchasing the guns but if in fact the purchase of the guns you need the whole context you can't just give me two pieces of information hypothetically and there's an answer that's black and white for sure two hours away using false identification is in fact incriminating then one might feel compelled to try to explain that away correct argument objection sustained may we have our morning break please well how much longer do you have um I can probably finish my name all right we'll take a 10-minute break Place 9 minutes let's get back at 10 minutes after the hour Dr bur is one of the things an expert such as yourself considers an evaluating claims of child sexual abuse is the medical history of that child is that correct it may be one factor yes and in fact in this case did you examine the medical history of Eric Mendez to see if you could corroborate what he told you I did not examine any him him medically did you examine his medical records yes through childhood and on up yes and you've indicated that there is an entry um dealing with injury to the soft pallet uula and ference correct that's correct do you find any other injuries or any any other physical injuries in his childood medical records which would corroborate his claim of sexual abuse uh that was the one that was an unexplained injury that's the only one and the other history in those three pages had a series of sore throats um those were the only other U aspects of that record office visit records no I did not find anything other than what you've just identified plus a lot of sore throats okay sore throats do not mean the child's been SE no sore throats don't but if you have that unexplained injury and then you have a series of sore throats it certainly is is information that can be considered did you see any information in his medical history indicating that he ever had any uh lower gastrointestinal examinations no I don't believe I saw any GI disorders gastrointestinal disorders you remember contained within his medical records there's reference to him being given a GI to evaluate a stomach ache and an evaluation of his bowel do you remember seeing that in his medical records no I don't remember that if that kind of information were available to you would you look at it to see if there was any abnormality to the bowel not necessarily to Bow no indication when this's done well just in general the question is would you examine that your answer would you consider that significant in looking for India of sodomy not with GI disturbance not necessarily okay may I approach please yes can I see if something's going to be shown okay you provided with the information contained in the document I'm showing you which is a written transcription of office notes from the Pediatric Group in Princeton yes and you're familiar with the first entry on this page correct yes I am and that is the incident that you referred to dealing with the damage to the ference among other things that is correct and the note indicates that the patient which was Eric mandez was seen in the emergency room the day prior to this notation is that correct uh yes all right did you ever asked to see the emergency room notes of that particular visit my understanding is they were not available that they did try to get them I mean I would have looked at them if they were available I have not seen them okay so you have not seen the emergency room notes from that visit correct from the previous day talking about yes from the previous day from the emergency room visit yes but I have a reason for why I don't do not believe they're available okay but you haven't seen them correct no now I believe you indicated one of the things that could have caused that injury would have been a penis is that correct it could have been were there other things that could have caused that injury it would have been something inserted into the mouth it could have been a stick um well you don't know whether the injury was a burn or not do you a burn yes a burn no I don't know if it was a burn and if it was a burn then that would be inconsistent with a penis wouldn't it if it was a burn and they had identified it and and there was a description of it that would be inconsistent with a sexual injury and there you have no description aside from what is contained in this particular report is that correct that's correct and the only description of injury is hurt HRT correct yes but hurt generally means injury right but that's the only indication you have is that there's a hurt yes and there's no identification whether it's a burn or a laceration or a bruise that would have been described in that uh in that report there there would have been more description if they had that amount of detail I believe and it was three areas of the throat so what are you saying about what it would have said it it should have said if if any of those factors that you just identified that by hurt it would have been described what type of hurt by Burn by Etc it's not identified there so you can't extrapolate at all from that what was the source of the injury correct that's correct and you found nothing else aside from s thros in his childhood medical history to corroborate a claim of sexual abuse is that correct that's what I just said and you did not price it's an unexplained injury unexplained that's why it what raised a red flag for her because it's unexplained yourself with the results of the physical exam which was conducted upon him before you came to testify with the ccope no that's been described in general I did uh identify that that was I was given information on that you were not given specific information about the results however were you no because they're going to be presented and you didn't consider it important to know the precise results of that physical examination before you rended your opinion correct I do believe I got information regarding that that I've already said that there uh was no way to determine consistently that there was a linked to sodomy are you saying that there was no physical injury found there was no sign of physical injury found that could be linked specifically to um anal injury yes now you've indicated as well that one of the things you consider significant in this case are the two photographs which were on the board yesterday correct yes okay how do you know that Mr mandez took those photographs I don't know who took those photographs somebody in somebody I know somebody in the family did have you ever seen a child take a photograph I've seen CH I uh what age uh 8-year-old children have you ever seen 8-year-old child handle a camera you're I'm getting object to this as completely irrelevant no Foundation over 8-year-olds if they have a camera may take cameras but I'm not familiar with how eight-year-olds take take pictures do you think an 8-year-old has the cognitive develop a normal 8-year-old has the cognitive development sufficient to point and click a camera yes right and so you have no specific information side from what you were told by the defendants that those pictures were in fact taken by their father that is correct and you're familiar with the fact the photographs are interspersed with photog so these boys somehow had the foresight to make this crap up when they were younger and take pictures of themselves when they were young children and blame the father for it does that make sense come on Nows of Eric mendez's sixth birthday party that is correct okay and those photographs at the sixth birthday party do not contain any naked children correct at the party that's correct I believe you talked about child molesters in general and you spoke about Jose mandez and you indicated that his personality um and the way he ran his business and the way he ran his family um and I don't want to put words in your mouth so was that consistent with your view of him as a child molester or inconsistent or what uh consistent with someone who is autocratic very controlling very domineering is used to getting what he wants is able to um silence people uh to be able to keep uh information very controlled those are the factors I would identify and those are factors that are necessary for any cha molester to be able to continue uh incestuous Behavior so would you say that all all child molesters who are engaged in incestuous Behavior are autocratic no I'm not saying that I'm just saying that those are some of the characteristics that would be given in terms of the patterns and the profiles of someone they are consistent with someone who would be able to do this to their son there is no profile of typical child molester is there Dr bures the profiles generally get into what's called a fixated and regressed and it does identify within those categories there is material based on Research that is in the literature are you familiar with the testimony of uh one of the prior witnesses that there is no Prof one of the prior expert witnesses that there is no profile of a child molester well again it depends on what you're defining as profile characteristics are generally uh useful describing there are child molesters who are not autocratic correct yes and there are child molesters who do not deal with the world in the same way that Mr manand did correct yes and those people are able to engage in insestuous interf family relationships correct yes but they will have characteristics that are quite different from what we see in this case and they still are able to maintain the secrecy to pressure the child and to ensure that isolate their child there's still a lot of things that persons that are not necessarily as um from a business standpoint skilled able to do talked a lot about isolation as something that is achieved by a child molester to keep the child quiet now did you study Mr Man with a view to determining what kind of personality he had I looked at all the material as to how he was described by others who knew him yes okay are you aware of the fact that Mr Menendez and his wife sent their son to a psychologist yes I am okay can you explain to me why a child molester would send his child to a psychologist well for several reasons one uh it was part of a the um probationary aspect second of all and I think probably most importantly that a waiver was uh given by their son that information could be given directly by the psychologist to the family and also the family were being seen in in part in uh sessions Dr bures the waiver was a one-month waiver from January the 18th until February the 18th of 1989 you're I'm going object to that it's argumented mistake dral test you're referring to a particular document yes exhibit 127 rephrase the question objection sustained as the form the question are you familiar with an exhibit in this trial that's been testified about which I showed to Dr Tyler when you were in the courtroom which was a waiver of confidentiality signed by Eric Mendez yes I am right and that waiver was for a one month period correct that is correct and you're aware of the fact that Eric Mendez saw Dr o for a considerable period of time before that waiver was executed yes I am now in your study of child and I take it you studi child molesters as well as child abuse victims correct yes have you what is the uh frequency of a child molester being a heterosexual a pedophile and a homosexual excuse me we ask the questions they all once or do you understand the question uh not really okay Dr burges if Jose mandz was having sex with his son his pre-adolescent son he would be considered to be a pedophile correct yes okay and why do pedophiles in your opinion have sex with children for issues of dominance and power those are the the um primary factors even though it does occur in a sexual context in addition to having dominance and power do pedophiles find children sexually exciting pedophiles do yes are you aware of the fact that Jose Menendez had an affair with a woman an adult woman during at least eight years of his marriage yes I am and you're aware of the fact that he had relationships with his wife as well yes I it's been in the it's been introduced in the record yes I I'm not sure well that's a fact well she had two children so he had sex with her da objective v onor as as irrelevant to the question over okay so we so he we know he engaged in heterosexual conduct correct yes and if Eric Mendez is to be believed he engaged in pedophilic conduct correct I call it incestuous Behavior but it's Al but it also means he's a pedophile he's a child molester well it does extend into adolescence and once that behavior extends into adolesence he is then engaged in homosexual conduct correct no then the term is heile then the term is pedophile heile okay what about when his son becomes an adult what is is that called homosexual Behavior well the heile has a Latitude to usually ranges in the teens um I'm not aware it well it didn't continue past 18 still in the teens what are the what is the frequency of someone being a child sexual abuser abuser a heterophile and a heterosexual how often does that occur oh the mixed categories can occur not what I can't give you is precise definitions or statistics on that um it has been studied in other people's research who really do try to find out truthfully from offenders this is not easy information to obtain but there certainly are mixed categories and they have um terms for it all right of all three of those particular incid that is the child the adult and the heterosexual Behavior yes is that common again I don't know the percentage but that certainly is reported in the literature it's not necessarily that uncommon that there' be a wide range of behaviors aimed at different ages as well as different Sexes it might be common for him to be a child molester and a heterosexual correct yes and it might be common for him to be a homosexual and a chaler correct um again this is you're getting into area that's called same seex and uh heterosexual and this is very hard to speculate on without him and having any history on him we can only look at the behavior that you're describing so there are those features that you just described it's a mixed well the behavior the behavior as reported by U the heterosexual behavior is is from people who are either deceased or not in custody correct the heterosexual behavior I'm not sure there's been um on on more than the wife it's been alluded to yes but I I don't I'm not aware that somebody has testified to that correct and you have no reason to believe that he did not engage in het heterosexual extramarital affair correct well that's one it has been stated that that's um what the mother was concerned about and the information you received about the pedophilic and the um conduct with the Adolescent and adult is from Eric Mendez correct that is correct who is incarcerated for murder that is correct now if a child is sexually abused does that mean that child can never premeditate premeditate what premeditate crime such as murder you this is argument does the fact that you've been sexually abused mean you are unable cogn with your cognitive skills to premeditate no okay so people who are sexually abused still have the capacity to plan and execute a murder well you have to see what the circumstances are again you'd have to look at each Act to see I would never make a blanket statement without seeing some facts well the blanket statement is is that who are sexually abused still may have the capacity to premeditate correct that's I said yes and the sexual abuse does not wipe out their capability to do that does it no and sexual abuse can cause anger in abuse victims can't it it's described as anger at what's being done to them yes okay and anger can can build up over a period of time correct yeah but it's not not necessarily always anger remember it can have other elements in it it isn't you can never make a a causal statement that it will be angered depends on the nature of the ACT Dr burges all I asked you is if anger can be a function of having sexual abuse form of the question is arguing re ask the question please now Dr burges are you you an advocate in this case no I don't believe I'm an advocate in this case and you're not an advocate for Eric Mendez no I've been called upon to evaluate and render an opinion in this case did you ever contact the prosecution to see if the prosecution had anything to add that you should consider I'm going to object to that under 115 and other rules that's appropriate question no I didn't I didn't realize that that was possible but you've testified for the prosecution 20 or 30 times in the past haven't you yeah yes and did you ever ask G should I call the prosecutors and ask them if they have anything to add to my analysis but I had so much information from the prosecution I I had all of the grand jury I I felt in the beginning I really had much more from the prosecution uh statement of case than even from the defenses now you indicated that one of the five factors that you consider significant in leading to Eric men' state of mind on the night of the homicide was the triggering event of Eric mendez's father indicating to him that he would have to stay at home during his tenure at UCLA on occasion remember that yes I do now you indicated that you had a lot of material from the prosecution in this Cas is that correct I had a lot of material from both sides did you consider the report of a man named ed fenno in making that assessment that this was a triggering event um I'm not the relationship could you help a little bit more to helping a little bit more I'd like to approach I don't see the necessity approach I you can show the witness a report certainly I have a report I'd like to approach on this well at this point uh if this is a report that the witness is seen you can look at it Dr I'm showing you a police department two page I'm showing you page two the report first of all the report was um the report was prepared on the 4th of June of 1993 did you receive any police reports um after this date I'm not sure I got that late reports I had all the early reports I'm I'll have to look at this to see whether I've seen it yes have you seen this report I I I think I have okay and the information contained in the report did you read it yes did you consider it in your evaluation of item number one of five factors when a state line yes and in the report mrend I'm going to object to any hearsay from the report I'd like to approach all right you may do so all right you may proceed yes showing you this report again like to ask you did you consider this report at all especially the part that's in yellow that ask yes did you consider that forming your opinion as to factor number one yes and you did consider it yes did you reject it well I don't see it as inconsistent with what my statement is right well the fact that Mr mandez wanted Eric mandez to go I'm going to object to reading that report still hasn't indicated the OB over the report indicates that Mr fenno was present when um Mr Menendez became upset because Eric mandz had turned down his acceptance at Berkeley yes all right now you didn't consider that significant in assessing Eric mendez's State of Mind well I don't see where that statement of the father makes um is and it's reported by Mr fenno in any way negates the the fact that where he wanted to go to school where where the son wanted to go to school Eric Mendez testified and I soon told you that I'll return your AR testified and told you I assume that when his father said he had to stay home a couple of nights a week when he attended UCLA it was for the purpose of his father continuing the sexual molestation yes the fact that his father wanted him to go to school at Berkeley do you consider that inconsistent with his father desire to have him stay home to engage in sexual relations well it doesn't say that his father wasn't happy with him going to UCLA uh he makes just that one statement on B excuse me on Berkeley and he fully intended to go to UCLA and live in the dorm and that was his wish and his dream and his uh that I think is what the important point is is that the uh he gets to choose where he wants to go Dr Burgess Mr mandez wanted his son to go to school in the San Francisco area according to this report if this report's true objection to the form of the question is sustain it's argumented if you have to rephrase a question if you want to pursue this Dr Burgess this particular report indicates does it not that Mr mandez was upset with Eric for turning down Berkeley that's what it says yes and if that is true that he was upset how do you reconcile that with Eric mandez's statement that his father wanted him to stay home a couple of nights a week while he attended UCLA well that's a whole different set set of circumstances when he's now talking about wanting to go to UCLA and the father gets into going over his courses and all of that um I I just don't see those as two I see them as very two SE very separate decisions and statements did you consider in evaluating Mr fenno's report that it would be difficult for Mr Mendez to continue to have sexual relations with his son if his son were 400 miles away yes and did you reject that idea and and in that kind of context yes so that the fact that the father wanted his son to go to Berkeley is not inconsistent in your view with Eric manand a state of mind that his father wanted him to stay home I'm going to back the form of the question State and now Dr burges I believe you indicated that you did examine the medical records of our cond in order to determine um he making correlations between things that don't make sense am I right what kind of child pracy is suff correct that's correct in addition you look at the medical records to see and I believe you even testified about how Mrs menis reacted or related to the medical professionals or others who were treating her son objection there no such testimony yes I believe you indicated all right wait one thing at a time objection sustained you may question going to show something to the witness I'd like to have it show that's I'm going to object to this document being shown all right first of all uh it may be shown to the witness to see whether or not she's seen it considered it and relied upon it well I'm going to ask to approach on this issue because of the preceding question your honor and because of previous rulings no I it's clearly something that can be at least the stage of foundation established so I want uh that to be established first can you review records dealing with treatment of Eric Mendez For Speech Pathology problems I'm showing you a um a letter that's actually a discharge report yes I know that he had that back in the 70s when he was 9 eight or nine years old and did you review these records and determine that he did in fact receive speech therapy yes he did okay and did you ever see this letter the second page of which contains a statement from I'm going to object to the reading of I'm not reading the statement all right let's have a question did you in fact look at this sentence dealing with um a statement made by the person who did the treatment yes okay and in looking at the information contained therein did you did it in any way affect your opinion as to the caregiving nature of Mrs Menendez yes and what affected this have on your opinion well the effect that had on my opinion is it confirmed that uh she is very both parents are very concerned about how their child presents himself to the outside world especially that he is able to speak clearly so I can see that as very compatible with what they would want and that image of the family so that does not surprise me at all that that statement is in the note that the fact that Mrs Menendez was cooperative yes that's quite consistent with what I would expect on that particular type of treatment did you ever consider the idea that maybe Mrs mandz wanted to get help for her son just because she wanted to get help for him well I think she did want to get help for her son in that particular area yes but I take it you into it that the help for her son was really for her own self-aggrandisement correct I don't think I said that well you did say didn't you that it was because of how the outside world would be the family yes and the outside world does look at how a child presents itself especially how a child speaks you're aware of the fact that he was sent to the leis School correct yes you're aware of the fact that he had tutoring when he was at bever Hills High School correct yes and did you ever consider that perhaps the parents just genuinely cared about their son did that ever was that ever part of your consideration well they certainly did care about certain aspects I don't think that's ever been I've ever denied that yeah she's not saying that they didn't care about them or that they didn't you know provide them with certain things that you know sometimes may have made them seem um what's the word I was looking for I don't know I lost it but they would provide them with things like food and shelter and you know fancy cars and vacations and whatever it was that they were providing was for their own self-image though if if you are getting a tutor for your son that's because you don't want your son to make you look bad because he's getting bad grades in math or whatever so it's all for their own self-image the parents it's not for the boys necessarily and um you can't really argue that I mean I can see how she's trying to argue that but it doesn't mean just because they got them tutors and got them you know the good schooling doesn't mean that they weren't abusive believe you indicated that in your evaluation Jose mandez was adapt at Mind Games correct yes did you ever see any evidence that he had passed that on to his sons three phrase question you indicated that Jose menis was adapted Bings correct yes and you're aware of the fact that J menes continually drilled his children during the course of their youth and adolesence correct that's correct he did you ever consider that Eric Mendez might be playing mind games with you when you interviewed him at the county jail well that's one of the things that goes into a complete assessment I mean all those factors that we've been talking about one would try to sift and sort through to see what and why the person is saying what they're saying I believe you indicated in your evaluation one of the things you did is you read the psychotherapeutic notes from Mrs mandz Mrs mandez's um treatment correct that's correct and you consider those notes to be very significant they're certainly important in terms of her State at her condition at the time that she was in therapy yes all right if Mrs manda's psychotherapeutic notes were important as to her state of mind yes why didn't you ask Dr oil for his Reflections on Eric m' State of Mind at near at the time of the the killings well I think I had that information in all the material I looked at you mean personally call him yes um no I felt I had adequate information plus I had already evaluated uh my opinion on the information I had in terms of notes Etc you've you had already made up your mind well that's one of the things one does is one goes through information to see is uh to make some type of of evaluation of it did you ever consider that the information contained in the notes you did have of Dr oil was in fact true Did you ever consider that that that the crime was committed in the way described in Dr oil's notes um I I don't think the crime was committed in the way it was revealed in Dr oil's notes that's correct why did you reject that I rejected that because of the way it was presented I rejected that because I don't think he was hearing what he was hearing and the way he stated it these were reconstructed kinds of notes and I found that very interesting that he didn't have actual notes so that I really did not find them credible but you never even talked to them did that's correct I didn't you are familiar with even from his notes he's not credible even his own notes to himself about his clients are not credible that's saying something the fact that during their testimony both of the defendants affirmed that much of what Dr oal testified to was correct objection you're argumentative over are you familiar with that fact Dr B the T yeah I how how are you okay do you want me to rephrase the question yes please when Eric mandez and his brother Lyle testified yes and they were asked specific questions about Dr oil's recitation of those two sessions they affirmed many of the conversations with doctor had related to the jury yes I understand not question was that in form of a question you understand it as I think I was going to answer it then you must my understanding of the testimony is there were parts of it but certainly not in the way that it was described and if I remember correctly there was more disagreeing with statements that came in um when Eric Mendez was asked about it than confirming so I I really would rather be a little bit more specific than to make a blanket statement that they affirmed it did you find any instances where they in either one of them in their testimony affirmed a specific statement of Dr oil uh yes they went to see him they did have meetings with him I mean some of those uh facts they did affirm and they also affirmed some of the content of those meetings correct and some of the content that's correct and those were the content which tended to minimize their responsibility for their act correct that's argumented objection sustained as to the form of the question Dr Burgess um I've asked you previously about the fact that you're familiar with Eric mendez's the fact that he acted inam in high school correct my understanding is he took a drama course that was required um are you referring to something else yes no I'm referring to the drama course you're familiar with the fact that he took drama yes but it's a required course um are you familiar with the fact that he wrote screenplays uh yes did you consider the screenplays in any of your evaluation of his mental state on the night of August the 2th no I did not so you didn't find U what he had written to be significant is that correct that correct turning now to the five factors which you say led up to Eric M's state of mind on the night of the killing and your honor I'm not going to finish before lunch so well how much longer do you have probably 20 minutes we'll keep going for a little while all right turning down to the five factors one of them is that the father had insisted that Eric M continue to live in the home correct and you reached this conclusion in spite of the fact that the father had apparently wanted to send to go to Berk objection arum sustained you reached this conclusion in spite of the information in the Edo interview is that correct the interview objection correct yes correct you indicated that um one of the the second Factor was his disclosure of his sexual abuse and suffering to his brother after witnessing his brother's humiliation at the hands of his mother correct that's correct would witnessing that particular event caused these hormones to be triggered in Eric Mendez the witnessing of that was an certainly an abusive humiliating act when the hair was literally pulled off and that certainly did shock surprise get reaction uh whether that was what it certainly did do was to trigger enough of a response that he did tell his brother about his own abuse by the father if someone I'm sorry you finished so in that respect it certainly did raise something that he had been withholding for a long time to the surface for him to be able to talk about it if someone is hypervigilant because of the change in the hormones wouldn't you expect that that kind of traumatic assaultive Behavior would have triggered this fear response in Eric mendas the night he saw that occur no not with his brother no so witnessing um assaulted Behavior does not is not a cue what triggered that kind of response well identification with his brother he now realized that his brother also was being similarly treated in certain respects and that would create more of a a closeness but in your testimony here today then that kind of situation would not trigger this fear response correct it t there is a cumulative aspect that in and of itself alone would not that's correct the third factor that you indicated was that Eric Menendez learned that his brother had had a confrontation with the father and what the father had said during that confrontation correct yes correct okay would that recitation by L Menendez to his brother be the kind of thing that would trigger his fear hormones to respond yes because that did have more threats I mean threats were implied and that is what would be a more important factor in terms of raising one's anxiety and fear level yes all right and in addition to that the next factor is the fact that that same night he claims that his father came to his room and came inside and physically assaulted him correct on that night Thursday night Thursday night that is where he resists and is able to flee that's the important part of that his behavior does change from just complying so at that point he was aware of the fact that he could resist and be successful correct well he now had an ally he now had somebody he could go to and that's who he does directly go to that he does feel is going to protect him but his brother wasn't with him when his father came into the room according to him correct that's right right and you would expect then that at that particular point in time his fear response was in full alert correct well yes he does make flight and he goes to his brother is that correct yes you aware of the fact that there is no indication that Mr Menendez pursued him anywhere correct correct you're aware of the fact that there was a maid living in the house that night well I'm going to object your that has not been establish why don't you rephrase a question okay you're aware of the fact that there are you aware of the fact that there were other people living in the house that night OB there's no evidence there other people question you can ask I am not aware of any I know that there was stated that there was a maid present who lived there but I do not know whether she was there at that time well are you aware of the testimony that Eric mandes gave excuse me the statement that Eric mandes gave to the police on September the 17th of 1989 in Princeton New Jersey yes okay and you aware during that statement there's discussion of the fact that the maid had Fridays through Sundays off yes okay have you read any reports from the maid as to her recollection of the week in question I don't believe so now then I believe you've indicated that um the other the other event that was significant to you was the mother revealing her knowledge of the abuse and then blaming her sons correct correct now would that Revelation by the mother trigger these hormones this fear response yes that was a very important part of all of this because much of his behavior up until that point had been geared toward protecting and staying with the mother Etc and here he now realizes that she has known not only has known but has taken no steps to protect him and um even then goes and blames her sons for the family's problems if that's true then it's significant correct if it's true that the family had problems no if the fact is true that the mother actually said these things then it's significant correct yes and the information you got in that regard from Eric mende is correct that is correct now um I believe you've indicated then that this was a q sufficient to trigger the fear response is that correct the cumulative those five factors okay well these five factors occurred over a period of uh several days correct correct was he in a constant state of fear response during that period of time he was highly anxious he had uh the hypervigilance he was anxious he was having difficulty sleeping um there are other uh facets of of a um arous state would difficulty in sleeping be consistent with someone who was planning to murder their parents um I'm not aware of of sleep patterns in in that I I don't think that I mean if somebody has a plan is going to carry it out and is very calm and collected about it I would think they'd be able to sleep very well you do if they had had it all planned out but again I don't know any studies that have been looking at the sleeping patterns of people who plan okay so there are no psychological studies in existence right now mapping out the Sleep patterns of uh premeditated murderers correct well I think that the the information or the research does show that they tend to be pretty calm pretty collected pretty organized so the only kind of premeditated murder there is is someone who was called BL is that correct it generally means planning and organization uh I know that that's a legal word premeditation but it generally means being able have high thinking you got to have low emotion okay so if you're emotional then you can't premeditate would that be your testimony you I think these questions are really improper from legal yes uh the term premeditation is a legal term and the court will Define that for the jury at the appropriate time at the end of the trial and this witness is not the uh source of such a definition good your next question if you're emotional does that mean you can't plan it depends what you're planning now did you consider the incident that occurred on Saturday night as related to you by Eric mandz with his father pounding at the door where Eric was armed with a gun yes okay and you didn't put that into your factors here this wasn't Factor number six is there a reason for that uh that was not one of the critical factors because the father didn't get in okay so you're telling me that when Eric mandez relates that his father was pounding at the door and Eric Mendez had the shotgun and was pointed it at the door that that was ins significant well we can add it I mean it certainly was part of the total picture from Thursday on through Sunday I mean that is one one additional aspect to it now if it were true that this event occurred on Saturday night with the was pounding at the door and Eric mendis was armed with a shotgun wouldn't you expect his fear hormones to be in full Stampede well this is getting pretty close to Sunday no I'm talking about Saturday night you you've outlin these events that occurred starting with Tuesday when the mother pulled the uh hairpiece off her son that's right and You' talked about this buildup correct correct you've talked about events up to Saturday correct mhm didn't you consider it significant that this event occurred on Saturday night where his father was pounding at his door and he for once was armed with a shotgun which was loaded to protect himself that's correct all right now if in fact he was suffering from all this hyper vigilance during the week why didn't he shoot his father then well he thought about that but that the door is shut and the door is locked and as long as the father doesn't come in he also only had two shells as I as I remember correctly but Dr burges you said that when a person goes into this automatic fear biological uh recoded genes response that that person acts automatically that's correct okay and if Eric Menendez was assaulted or if Eric mandz was in the situation he described on that Saturday night he would have been in the full automatic fear response based upon your evaluation of him wouldn't he yes and I said there's a cumulative effect so that you have to look at all of those days and if you want to add that we can make it a six point yes that's a very important factor wasn't his father pounding on the door more threatening than his father closing the D door the next day oh no because the the word had already been told he was supposed to go up to his room and then the father would come up and see him there and that's a more specific uh clue that of something that's going to happen and that's really what generates the um what happens on Sunday evening later that evening you're saying that his father saying go to your room was more of a threat than his father standing at the door trying to pound it the door down you're saying that was more of a threat that go to your room versus let me into your room well the door was locked he had the gun he don't forget he had no I'm not going to excuse me answer yes yes I think I have next question how do you explain this incident on Saturday night how how do you explain the fact that if he okay let me back up he would have been in the fear response because his father is pounding down the door correct object to the form of the question I think the door was coming off the just yet all right over question I still have a ways to go should we break for lunch no let's keep going okay okay on Saturday night according to Eric Mendez he has gone out and bought a shotgun and he's gone out and he's bought stronger ammunition correct correct okay he's got a loaded gun in his bedroom which he secreted some on his bed correct correct his father who he allegedly believes to be a child Moler is pounding at the door correct I've got objection of the question is argumentative all right if you've got to then you will is that right I don't all right the objection is sustained as to the form of the question you may rephrase it if you want to break it down so that you aren't summarizing evidence okay according to his testimony he's in his room correct objects form of the question based on testimony over you read his testimony didn't you yes did you see any of his testimony yes I did I think I saw the uh cross exam okay yes now the events of Saturday night where he has a gun and his father is beating on the door correct yes we're talking about that event correct yes okay you've indicated that he's hypervigilant all week correct yes we know according to uh what you've said that on Thursday night his father um chased him in his own bedroom correct that's correct okay and then on Saturday night this incident occurs where the father pounds on the door yes and Eric minus is armed yes would you consider arming oneself with a loaded shotgun to be a stressful event well it's it's for self- protection so that certainly is a stressful event yes all right would you consider a father who you believe to be a child molester pounding on your bedroom door to be a stressful event yes so he would have been under a lot of stress yes and even if none of the events of the week before had happened that particular event would have been stressful right yes oh never sorry yes is that correct yes correct okay is there any reason that he would not have been in this full fear response at that time no so he would have been yes okay and I believe it was your testimony that when one is in that particular response one reacts automatically that's correct but you indicated that Eric minz would have known or would have thought about the fact that is gun only had two rounds and things of that nature correct well he's sitting there with a gun and he knows it has two rounds and he's actually thinking if his father comes in he is going to have to shoot and will two rounds or two shells be adequate to protect himself so in spite of the fact that he's in this full fear response it's your testimony that he would have had the capacity to think about the weapon available to him and whether or not it would kill well he has it and he's he is sitting there as you describe he is sitting there and he is prepared to use it to defend himself if anything further happens with that door and if he's thinking about the number of rounds in his weapon is he engaging in cognitive behavior yes he's sitting right there and he's very focused in on one point and that's to protect himself now the snails that you talked about who reacted to this impulse did not have cognitive behavior available to them correct snails can't think that's correct all right and I believe that the research that substantiates this neurobiological genetic recoding is based in part upon these snails that's one of these um groups that they've studied that's correct and I believe in your direct examination you testified that the brain stem which controls this kind of automatic behavior is similar in humans as it is in snails yes this one particular area correct and it was based upon that research that you hypothesized that um Eric Mendez and others similarly situated would have this fear response correct yes okay now I believe you testified did you not in direct examination that the fear response puts the individual on something akin to automatic pilot that's right yes okay automatic pilot now does that occur in the snail as well as the human you can't look at behavior in snails well they avoid they they were studying the avoiding Behavior remember getting away from the dangerous stimuli so what you're testifying to now then is that even though he would have been in this full fear response with the adrenaline pumping and his hormones going yes that he would have had the ability to think well the thinking is he's he's on automatic if that his thought is if that door opens he is going to shoot to protect I see that as a automatic kind of One Singular thought but he's not thinking he's on automatic pilot well the thinking we said it's high emotion low thinking it doesn't mean zero thinking it goes into a more automatic protective mode uh people do under when they are threatened still behave and still act as best they can even though there's High emotion I mean we go back to that car you know people do try to do things to avoid a car accident they don't just stop thinking why would the events of the father closing the door to the den on Sunday night be more provocative than the father pounding on the door on night because it's more characteristic for this family to be silent to give an order to shut the door and that was a unimportant Factor added to what we've already talked about on these other factors but I think you testified that when things are not characteristic that they create a heightened sense of hypervigilance in other words when things are not always as they seem that causes stress to the individual who is subject to this phenomena youve described yeah well they don't know what is going to be discussed within what what is going to go on all they have is the instructions to get up to your room and he will deal with him later okay so if the father has not previously pounded on the door that would be something new that would cause additional stress correct well that had already occurred that had already heightened um that phenomenon that had just happened the night before isn't one of the things you consider in this particular assessment and one of the things you found significant is that the behavior of the parents had changed and that change in Behavior caused extra stress yes that's a cumulative aspect we've looked at this as the person as Eric Menendez going into a more crisis kind of situation because there was new factors all of these things that occurred and so there was call for new Behavior but I think what you said was significant about closing the door on Saturday Sunday night was it it's something that had happened before so which is it Dr bures is it something that happened before or the new experience which is the greatest treasure to the individual objection argumentative I believe that there you never can get away from old cues as well as new cues so you have to be able to factor in those and so some of the old cues is the shutting the door the being silent Etc but the new cues is what we have just gone through in these five or six items so that interfaces those all it isn't like it's a brand new situation you have special knowledge of a a situation in which parents behave have behaved in a way before that still is part of one's um fund of knowledge now on the N question oh by the way another question did you see her face I'm going to rewind that a second to that answer look at it her face Miss baz behave have behaved in a way before that still is part of one's um fund of knowledge now on the nting question oh by the way I have another so snobby she was looking up at her like are you familiar with the fact that um Eric Mendez when he moved out of the family home and got his own place took his bed with him yes did you consider that significant a light of the fact that he claims that is the bed where his father sexually abused him my understanding is he did put additional factors on this was a bed that um where the sexual abuse occurred um there were corners and sharp corners and so forth and so he he he changed the bed if you will with those I guess bumpers that were bought and this was um and I'm aware of that that this was now a different if you will it had been changed because of the presence of bumpers well there were sharp edges I don't I have not seen the bed but um that's my understanding of the testimony do you see anything in consistent with a child abuse victim taking the bed which is the scene of the crime with him to his place of safety as a momento do you find that at all inconsistent I'm going to object the form question since he many fact when you're a child and you don't have money to go buy your own bed no it's not that weird furniture had to be taken to set up a new place um I don't see that necessarily inconsistent um said there's been change made to it are you aware of the testimony of um Eric mendez's Aunt Marta that she went shopping with him for furniture and in fact one of the things he bought was a pool table correct I believe so and those were expensive items of furniture correct that is correct and so it wasn't for lack of funds that he took the bed with them correct well it could have been to conserve money I have no idea I did not talk to him about uh why he took certain items with him you think it's more important to have a pool table or a bed to sleep in so you didn't see anything unusual about the fact that Eric Mendez took this bed with him when he moved out correct you didn't see that as unusual not necessarily no shall I continue all right does does the court wish me to finish before we go to lunch I just want okay I shall continue now Dr Burgess if Eric Menendez and his brother could not have gone to the movie theater and could not have purchase the tickets they way they said and buried the guns and Chang their clothes and godess Anam Monica Civic in the period of time available would that change your opinion about the truthfulness of the information you receed from ericus no it would not no the time between is this that the time repeat the question at the time already between 10:00 10 p.m. and 11:07 areal post crime correct correct if all the things that men brother said they did could not be achieved in that period of time would it change your opinion as to the truthfulness of the information given to you by AR Mendes I think I've said that that is one of the factors I look at in terms of what you're calling their activity their post- crime activity if that that just didn't work um the time element well they they going to the movie the meeting of a friend the trying to go to a second place I think there were two places that they went to that didn't happen and then they back what do you mean what do you mean by your question I don't understand her answer I didn't understand your question why don't you rephrase it then you heard or you read the testimony of Eric Mendes and his brother that after this crime that they committed out of fear yes that they went and picked up the shells correct correct and that took a period of time correct I assume I have nobody's giv me how long it took but I assume it took time and you're aware of the fact that they waited for a period of time before they picked up the shells correct yes I I am aware of that okay and you're aware of the fact now I believe you testified in your crime scene evaluation that there would have been Blood on the perpetrators correct one would suspect that given the amount of blood that was present yes and have you looked at the blood slatter evidence at the crime scene as well yes okay and with the head wound to Jose mandez have caused splatter on the person who who inflicted that wound I can object this point really for her exper splatter all right well she has certainly use that as a basis of her opinion or part of it's objection overruled objection overruled you understand there are people Dr Virg who are experts in blood flatter correct yes and you're not one of those that's correct okay but regardless of where the drops went what direction they went would you assume that someone who inflicted the wound to the back of Mr manz's head would have gotten blood on them on that is not regardless of where it goes but depending on that well she has certainly described uh the presence or absence of splatters as a factor she considered in this subject of planning so objection over she's not an expert in spatter this is totally improper for her to testify to that over what I would say is I'm not sure where the and what wound would have given what blood splatter but generally that much blood present at the scene would would suggest that there's going to be some blood obtained on clothing shoes Etc and you're aware of the testimony that in fact the uh each of the defendants changed at least an article of clothing after the killings is that correct that's correct and if that changing the article of clothing took a period of time to accomplish yes you're aware of the fact that they indicated that they went to the movie theater first in order to obtain tickets to substantiate where they were I'm aware they went to the movie theater to yes they went to the movie theater I'm not sure to obtain tickets well did did you read the T yes that's right they went to the movie theater and you're and you're familiar with the fact that L manenda said they parked at parking meters outside of centry city correct yes all right now you're aware of the fact that after they got the tickets they went up to an area at malland in cold water and they got rid of the guns yes I'm familiar with that testimony and you're aware of the fact that it would take a period of time to secrete the guns the way it was described by the defendants you're aware of the fact that take that getting rid of guns would take a period of time yes yes and you're aware of the fact that they then returned into the Beverly Hills area and proceeded to the Santa Monica Civic yes I am and you're aware of the fact that at least one of the brothers indicates they changed their clothes beforehand yes okay now if one had blood on them and one were going to meet someone like per Burman you wouldn't want to have blood on your clothes when you met Perry Burman correct suain would a um a careful person who was trying to perfect an alibi show up at a place to be identified wearing with blood on closed suain so you're aware of the fact that they went to Santa Monica is that correct yes I am did you ever think to yourself GE I wonder if they could have done that in an hour and S minutes over did you ever think to yourself I did not uh look at the time it would take to drive all that places and I didn't see any documentation of how long the houses are away from these sites that they went to I I don't have that did you ever ask anyone to see if it was possible before you decided that Eric Manis was telling the truth well sometimes it's included in in a police report that kind of information or testified to a grand jury or something I just did not find that material did you ever ask anyone to provide you with that information so you could assess whether or not Eric mandz was telling the truth telling the truth uh no I did not she's not a detective she's not the one that's supposed to be verifying Eric's answers she's reading through his medical records and assessing him evaluating him through her questioning regarding his trauma Jes this lady ask anyone for that information not a detective now it's your testimony that this crime was a result of fear correct that's correct and are you familiar with the testimony of L Min he acted out of fear as well yes I am and I take it you find you don't find any inconsistency in the fact that although the brothers had different experiences growing up they both were in this fear response is that correct that's correct okay now when they went in and they picked up the shell excuse me when they went out and they Reloaded The Gun when went out to reload the gun yes was he in that fear response when he reloaded he was in a state of high emotion yes well what's is there well fear all right yes fear response was he having this biological phenomena that you described it happens in these snails in your opinion rul so rude he is in a highly anxious State and a fearful State yes okay well what okay for purposes of this discussion that we're going to have now how do you describe this response where someone is acting an automatic pilot right what call what shall we call it well it's an automatic response and the point here is there's such high emotion that that was not a needed behavior that was not necessary if that had been a very planned um if this had a plan and had been very as we call organized that would not have had to happen but do you remember the testimony of L menis that his mother was still sneaking around the room even after she' been shot rephrase a question do you remember the testimony of L mandis that he saw his mother sneaking around the coffee table sneaking praise a question do you remember the testimony of L mandez in which he described his mother mother's Behavior as being sneaky you remember that testimony not a sneaky no remember a noise but I don't remember sneaky okay now you say that that last shot was not necessary correct you're familiar with the fact that L Menendez indicates he only reloaded one shot a birdshot correct correct you're familiar with the corners report there were two birdshot wounds two separate birdshot wounds from Mrs Menendez yes okay how how do you reconcile that with his testimony that he only reloaded once well again this is the mixed ammunition that's found at the crime scene and that really doesn't tell us whose gun had what shells in it and really speaks to I believe to more emotionality in terms of loading the gun and U doing that I I don't think we can tell who had what shot when the brothers went out to the car to reload before the shooting began were they on automatic pilot that over yes they were on automa well they were on yes they were in a in a fear mode yes all right and when they were in this fear mode they were able to think gee I better get these two rounds of birdshot out of here and put in these rounds of buck shot so I can do a better job is that is that what was going on no that's not what I think is going on how can Behavior such as loading and unloading a shotgun be automatic to someone who's not done it before because well they had done it to load first I mean it's not like they'd never done it they had to load their the guns first so um I don't see that as not knowing how to to load a gun so the fact that they loaded the shotgun on one prior occasion meant that this particular Behavior was automatic for them is that correct well what becomes automatic is a high emotion and the misunderstanding what the situation is they had not planned it to know that they didn't need to do all of this to if indeed it was a plan as you suggest to to to do that they didn't need to do all that but this is Monday morning quarterbacking isn't it for you to sit here and say what they should have done no this is looking at crime scene overall no this is what is is called crime scene looking at the crime scene I don't think you need to get into Monday at this particular time um to read that crime scene for the preliminary crime scene in terms of the number of weapons and number of injuries uh Etc did you consider the possibility that the crime did not occur the way that the defendants thought it would I considered all kinds of things when I listened to all the material and I sifted and sorted and looked at as many things as I possibly could I did not go in with one particular point of view and then they were on automatic pilot after they loaded their guns and went back into the room correct oh um yes reloading talking about I'm talking about the reloading that occurred prior to the shootings not after the shootings they were on automatic pilot when they went back in is that correct when they went back in the second time yes no I'm sorry I'm sorry why don't you phrase the question as to the incident where the guns were reloaded first or second when the defendants loaded their guns with buck shot and went into the room to kill their parents I take it as your testimony that they were an automatic pilot yes okay and when they left that room and returned to the car in order to reload with bird shot they were on automatic pilot question rephrase a question when they when Eric manes and his brother went to the car and Eric handed his brother around bird shot yes they were both automatic pilot is that correct yes and when they returned to the room and ly mandez put the muzzle of the gun up against his mother's cheek they were still on automatic pilot is that correct objection over objection over my understanding of the coroners report is that you cannot determine exactly where a gun is point is necessarily uh having a particular point that you couldn't determine that from the from the crime scene do you know how a contact Mo is Dr bur yes I do contact moon is when the muzzle of the gun is placed on the skin correct rephrase a question okay Dr bur what is the wound my understanding of contact wound is that the gun muzzle is placed very close to a particular part are you familiar with the Corner's testimony in this case as well as the coroners report wherein as to Mr menendez's contact wound on the back of his head there was actually a muzzle impression are you familiar with that testimony yes okay so that would have been a contact wound where the gun was actually touching the skin yes are you familiar with the coroner's testimony as well as his report that there was no soot or stippling on the outside of the wound on Mrs menendez's left cheek that's correct and the absence of s stippling would indicate that the muzzle of the gun was on the cheek wouldn't it objection yeah I'm not sure well it also goes beyond this witness's expertise suain well all right but you just testified as to what you think a contact wound is correct overall yeah that was my uh and again I'm not an expert in gunshot wounds okay now if it's been established through the testimony of the coroner and also through the testimony of Li menand is that he went back in and put the muzzle up against his mother's cheek and pulled the trigger was he an automatic pilot when he did that Judes a testimony overall was he on automatic pilot when he did that he's on automatic pilot when he's doing what he's doing there's High emotionality low thinking and when he and his brother went back into the room to pick up the shells they were still an automatic pilot well now that gets into another phase and I think we've already talked about that that's what the post crime behavior is and there is a segment of time that you now need to get I think needs to come in in terms of afterwards in the foyer all of that and waiting for the police to to come that's an important piece do you find it at all interesting that if in fact these two brothers were acting out of fear that they had the presence of Mind within 5 to 10 minutes of doing this crime to go back in the room and pick up shotgun shells to eliminate fingerprints well I think that that is part of what happens as they're sitting in the forer to try it's a whole another phase they did not anticipate having to plan that or to do to use or to what to do afterwards because they fully expected that the police would show that the noise and all of that I don't that had not in any way been part of their thinking now they are faced with having to do something and they are faced with what they did and so the Behavior now becomes focused on a different aspect at which point in the sequence did the um automatic pilot fear response turn off well there's still in a I mean it doesn't just go on and off like a switch there certainly is a length of of time and that's certainly what all the Studies have shown so that's not that they're actually still on or still off but they're in a highly um aroused state in terms of fear do you all do you find it it all significant that they had the presence of mind when acting in The Spar of response to go back and to think of oh GE their fingerprints on those shells we better go get them did you find that at all unusual no why not because there can be another explanation for it they were now thinking of what had happened and to to remove that is another uh another action there's another explanation for it as well isn't there Dr bries question overall the other exp is that they planned before the crime to Pi up the shell well that is your theory that's not what I think I saw I read the the crime scene and I think there's far more information that follows that confirms their uh lack of planning and their intent to protect themselves all right let's take our recess here and we'll resume at 1:30 don't discuss this matter with any all right you may continue your cross- examination Dr Burgess did you ever discuss Dr oil's notes with Eric Mendez no I did not in your review of Dr oil's notes did you ever see any reference to the term sociopath you're ask to approach oh I believe there was a reference to that yes do you know I would ask to approach on for some notion of what council is asking about well you're going to refer to the testimony that was a preparatory question I just have a couple questions in this area there to question did you ever consider the possibility that Eric Mendez was a sociopath I considered all possibilities looking at all of the data and reviewing everything so within that framework um I would have to say I considered everything but I Ruled certain things out what is your understanding of what a sociopath is there's no s I believe you've indicated that one of the respon that there are two responses to this automatic fear response one is flight and one is Fright excuse me fight correct and there's freeze oh there's a third one well there's the numbing the third the freezing the numbing of the three parts Preparatory and the fight flight and then it goes into the third phase of the numbing freezing but I'm talking about the second phase okay fight flight yes the second phase is fight or flee well don't forget sometimes you can do neither all right now on Thursday night of the week in question which was the uh 17th of August of 1989 you related an incident in which um Eric mandez was able to flee from his father correct yes and that would be an example of the fear response kicking in and he chose flight and in fact was successful at it yes okay on Saturday night when his father was pounding at the door and he was armed with a shotgun yes he couldn't flee because he was in a locked room correct that's correct but he didn't fight that's correct okay was that a conscious choice on his part or was that an automatic response that's actually a good example of freezing um because he did have a choice of shooting okay so even though he was in this automatic mode he still had Choice available yes so does that mean we're not like snails in that regard I really don't think we can make any analogy to snails snails is one example of the genetic recoding so I I'm not prepared to talk about what um making analogy to snails when we when we're talking about human behavior Dr burges um you brought up in your direct examination the research on the snails which um was she is holding her ground very well against this Pam bonic who has some really out there questions used in order to substantiate this genetic recoding correct that's I just said that's one of the studies that they have done that's looking at the genetic recoding and one of the things that goes on in that genetic recoding is that the mechanism for triggering the hormones is is either shortened or hyper sensitized or something like that right it recodes and it has a new translation and it recodes in terms of survival so there now is a higher level and that's the higher Q reading for the survival mode and on Saturday night when Eric M's father was pounding at the door and he was armed with a loaded shotgun he would have been in this mode where his uh hormones were his fear hormones were triggered correct that's correct and he did not fight he did not fight he did not flee he froze he couldn't flee because he was in a locked room yes he was on the second story of a building well he could have gotten up and unlock the door and that would have been a fight response well that would be one example yes or he could have shot and that would be a fight response yes and the flight response wouldn't be reasonable because he was in a locked room and the only Avenue of safe Escape was through path his father who was counting on the door correct yes now on Sunday then he chose in your interpretation the fight response yes can you explain why on Thursday and Saturday he CH didn't choose the fight response but on Sunday he did well there is that interaction that has occurred just before the parents go in and that's been testified to I Believe by both defendants and that's where there is the exchange the um brothers are told they're not to leave and that Eric is told to go to his room and then the parents go into the family room so there is what I'm saying is there's another added piece to this uh five St five steps have occurred before that now I believe we discussed um earlier the fact that the cue of closing the door and going into the den is something that you believe was a triggering cue would that be fair to say well that's an old cue well how's that silence not just giving the order dismissing the um persons and leaving the room on prior occasions when that particular queue had been given had Eric manz's life been in danger well that's a cue that is a wider type of situation now where many examples have been given about how Jose Menendez would stop a conversation with just just a mirror cut of his hand or use of his hand or a look stopping a conversation is not a life-threatening Act is it I just giving you some examples okay my question is this is there any evidence that on prior occasions when a door had been closed in the same manner in which it was on Sunday night that Eric M's life had been in danger well what is important about the four four five days that we're talking about is that there's a direct threat the incest secret is about to come out as perceived by that confrontation so things are quite different and I think you have to look at that type of um material within the new context according to the testimony the inscest secret was revealed on Thursday night correct that's correct and that would have greatly increased Eric Mendes's anxiety correct that is correct and then Saturday night the father is pounding at the door correct yes there's also the fishing trip before that oh the fishing trip did you find any significance in the fishing trip yes I think the fishing trip did have significance in terms of the time change without very adequate kind of explanation they were just told and in fact they did try to avoid that by coming home late there was testimony that shows that the family was about an hour and a half late supposed to be there I think at 3:00 and they weren't there until 4:30 so that the parents waited for their sons was a factor the fact that the parents waited for their sons to go in a family outing you found to be suspicious yes because the sons did not want to go when they were trying to come in late so that they wouldn't have to go but the parents didn't know the sons didn't want to go on the fishing trip so how does they waiting for for their s how does that trigger their sense that something's wrong I think it's a good example of no communication I mean nobody's talking to each other that's another important feature of this family at this particular point in time okay now the fact that the parents the mother told them on Friday night that there's been a change in the time that we're going on the fishing trip that has psychological significance in this chain of events correct it's yes it has meaning in this yes in this chain of events and what is the meaning of that well the meaning of this is that she just gives this fact that it's going to be a change in time with minimal explanation if any and no questions or asked nothing and they're the suns are just supposed to show up at 3:00 on Saturday and they haven't been told a lot of information about this shark fishing trip and they're wondering if that might be a time when something dangerous is going to happen they are Geared for something dangerous to happen because there has been this confrontation between the father and the son you think the fact that they were going to fish for sharks was acced them to be in danger I think the fact is that they were all going to be together and they didn't know when and what uh the father was not known for revealing what he intended to do that was a characteristic of the father well on Thursday night Eric MZ and it's not like he was a nice guy you'd be scared of them too fled on Saturday night Eric Mendes chose not to fight they didn't have to go on the fishing trip did they they didn't have to go and all they had to do was tended not to go all they had to do is drive around the block and wait for their parents to leave and then they wouldn't have gone on the fishing trip correct arum they waited an hour and a half before they came home so they wouldn't have to go and you found it very ominous that the parents waited for them to go on a family outing I don't believe I said that well what did you what psychological significance did you attach to the fact that the parents waited for them to go on a family outing rejected the characterization we testified this was a family outing what I found significant is that there was a whole lack of communication about this um that the parents did wait for the sons this was supposed to be as I understood it from the testimony from the captain that he uh the father was to learn this um shark fishing for a client so it was not necessarily in the context of that the family had to all be there he could have learned this uh without the sons being there it's like a work trip for Jose that he's just bringing his kids along for and his wife so he's not alone is there anything that happened between Tuesday the 15th and Sunday the 20th which is inconsistent with your theory which you consider to be inconsistent with your theory that this is a crime born out of fear no this is my opinion this is a crime born out of fear and there's no fact that you have considered and found to be in conflict with your theory about the fear well I think what we are not looking at is there still is a lot more material that also leads me to this conclusion that and like I've said in the past it's taking everything into the big picture looking at all the pieces yeah there might be some conflicting evidence over here potentially but when you look at the big picture of everything it's pretty clear that these boys were maltreated they're entire lives by their parents that I think is very important to look at now when the brothers went to the car and they ejected the shells they previously put in the bird shot and they loaded with buck shot I believe before lunch we discussed that that was an automatic response corre have you ever done any studies of police shootings I've read studies of police shootings I have not personally done any police officers are trained in handling their weapons correct that is correct police offic are trained to reload yes police officers are trained more than just loading their weapon one time before they're sent out to use it correct yes that's correct so a police officers training would be greater than what the defendants claim they did in regard to the shotguns they purchased on Friday correct yes you're aware of the fact that in stressful situations police officers don't always respond to their training in regards to handling their firearms correct yes that's yes that's the high more High emotion and low thinking that can always happen in any situation and so I would take it that in spite of all the planning that the police officer does and how to handle his gun and how to reload that the stress of the situation can make the best plan go a ride that's training training is something that you're Auto atically are able to put your behavior into action around a specific event whether that is loading Your Gun and shooting or you could use other examples I mean training is to make that come automatic to you you have no evidence that either Eric Menendez or L menz were trained in the use of a shotgun correct correct but although they had no training it's your testimony that when they when they loaded the gun from birdshot to buck shot that that was an automatic response that is correct now you're aware of the fact that loading the shotgun with three rounds is different from loading the shotgun with six rounds are you familiar with the testimony of Deputy Van Horn from the sheriff's department in this trial thought it was five rounds but yes no it's six according to testimony of Mr Van Horn it was six rounds what it means how many can be fit into the weapon or what do you mean you're familiar with the fact that according to the testimony the defendants they only loaded two rounds into their shotguns after they purchased them in San Diego on Friday night correct and those rounds were bird shot correct and you're aware that there's a mechanism necessary to eject already loaded rounds from the gun if you don't fire them M Barrel correct yes okay and you have no indication that these defendant had any training in doing that particular function that is unloading the gun that's correct and you had no information that they had any training in fully loading the gun with six rounds no testim overall I don't have any information on I mean I have no knowledge that they had that training examing the crime scene did you ever count up the number of shots that you think were fired well I read the coroner's report and I read the police report I was not personally at the crime scene so I only have that information to go on if you were not personally at the crime scene how can you testify that the crime scene was disorganized the objection is sustain Dr burges you don't need to be at the crime scene in order to look at photographs of it correct rephrase the question Dr burges did you any attempt to count the number of shots that were fired from the photographs that you were given and the corers report and the corers testimony found by on that point all right objection Su do you have any expertise in examining gunshot wounds no is that something that is not included in your crime scene analysis that is part of the forensic report that comes in you understand that the coroner testified and also substantiated in his report that Mrs mandz had 10 areas of gunshot wounds 10 areas right and he could not determine how many shots had been fired that's correct but she had 10 areas and some of those areas contain more than one wound to her body correct yes for instance the that went across her right forearm and into her right upper arm was considered one area of wounding for purposes of his discussion correct yes you're aware of the fact that there were two misses in the doors correct that's correct you're aware of the fact that Mr Mendez had five areas of gunshot wound yes are you familiar with the trajectory of the various wounds on Mr Mendez I have to you know what trajectory is don't you yes that's the direction that the um bullet or shotgun pets travel that's correct now did you at any time try to evaluate how many wounds you thought and how many excuse me how many shots you thought were fired from looking at the crime scene no I took took the what was written in the reports I did not count per se I looked at the autopsy report looked at the coroner's report looked at the police reports well you know the the number of rounds fired is an issue in this case correct that's correct over overall and in spite of the fact that you are not trained as an expert in gunshot wounds you have studied crime scenes for a number of years correct yes did you ever make an attempt to evaluate using your own prior experience how many gunshots you thought had been fired sustain the answer when the defendants went into the room did you find it at all significant that there were only two misses okay the question objection objection since facts not all right rephrase the question Dr Burgess in your evaluation of the crime scene where you gave testimony in front of both jurries didn't you testified that there were two misses in the French doors I believe I said there the Miss there were Miss shots into the door I didn't know whether those I don't think I said as to how many shots had been expounded because pellets can clearly be expended from the bird shot um there's 27 and one and more than that in the bird so my understanding from the firearm specialist is you cannot determine how many shots were fired in your evaluation and in your conclusion that this was a disorganized crime scene didn't you testify that there were two misses overall you did you did so testify um that's in the form of a question want don't you answer I thought I said that there were two areas that had um expended shell evidence I'm not sure I said two specific shots I didn't mean to say that I don't know I don't think anybody can determine that of how many shots were fired all right so you didn't testify in your crime scene analysis that this was disorganized that one of the things you considered were the two misses in the French stor you didn't say that right I did testify that this was disorganized one of the reasons being there are multiple uh shots fired a gunshot with a wide range of pellets there were two areas that had that were outside of the range of the uh two victims and those were the two shots to the French doors correct those could be two shots to the French doors what other sh what other shots could you be referring to them if it's not the French doors rephrase a question what other shots are you referring to if it's not the two shots in the French doors are there other areas where there appear to be misses in the room I thought one went out into the tree out inside the tree was outside the French door right okay so that would be consistent with a a pallet passing through the French door into the tree correct well it could be I don't think it's been determined what it was but there certainly were pets out in the tree now I believe you indicated that this was a crime of high emotionality correct yes did you consider it interesting that in light of the defendant's testimony that the room was Smoky and couldn't see and that they were very upset that the parents were hit so many times no you didn't find that inconsistent with their version that they acted out of fear in a in a random shooting well that is consistent with acting out a fear in a random that there's a wide range of shots that are fired there's no specific targeting no clear one shot the wrong weapon all of those kinds of factors I go into my um categorizing this as a disorganized crime scene Mrs mandz was shot in 10 areas on her body is that correct that correct answer Mr menz was shot five times same OB corre and you didn't consider it noteworthy that their state of mind allowed them to hit their target that many times Che question to state did you consider that noteworthy that in spite of the fact that they were in this aut automaton rage that they hit their target that many times question is no such T the point is that there were multiple shots that were fired at a time indicates high emotionality low thinking now at some point after the killing the effects of this um the hormones and the fear response diminish correct there is a period of time when that occurs okay after the after Mr Mendes allegedly closed the door to the den on the night of the 20th which was the queue that prompted this one of the cues one of the cues that prompted this wasn't there sufficient time for them to cool down before they went into shoot question co down rephrase a question okay you've indicated that after the shooting but before they pick up the shotgun shells they would have um transformed out of this uh mental state that they were in correct no I don't think I said that I said that there is a a can be a lowering but that is an important phase of this is when they do go out into the fouryear area and they are feeling exhausted certainly uh Eric Menendez was feeling exhausted and then came the next step of what to do so that that is what now becomes the post-crime behavior Eric Mendez had felt exhausted after committing a premeditated crime would that be inconsistent with him having premeditated do people who commit plann crimes get tired by committing their crimes well people that commit planned crimes that are organized generally Cal collected and cool and so that it is not a lot of emotion that is uh surfacing and generally all of this uh would not be activated the fear mechanism would not be activated when the defendants went to the police and told when Eric M went to the police and told him the story that he and his brother had agreed upon was he still acting in this automatic State well the the part of the um offense Behavior was over by the time the police came which would have been several I roughly several hours later there was still quite a bit of shock and fright present because that is in his statement so the fact that he was able to tell the story to the police that he and his brother had agreed upon yes in no way changes your mind that he was still acting in some sort of state of fright I think it indicates he was in a state of fright his statement are you familiar with the testimony from lman NIS that he and his brother returned to the house at sometime that morning the morning of the 21st because Lyall wanted to retrieve further evidence from his car oh okay you've jumped ahead now to about what 3 in the morning 8:30 in the morning :30 in the morning yes okay would that be consistent with someone who has just suffered terrible fright to have the presence of mind to remove evidence in front of the police it certainly speaks to his his mind state of fear yes doesn't it show a great deal of coolness for someone to be able to go into a crime scene recover evidence and destroy it with a police officer standing right there well I think both uh defendants clearly state in their statement to the police that they were at the crime scene don't you think returning to the car to remove evidence in where the police officer standing by shows a great deal of coolness on the part of the person doing it no I don't think I would ever make that jump in that lead no but you would make the leap that this crime was committed out a fear correct s I'm going to give a hypothetical to you Dr burges two brothers have been psychologically manipulated and perhaps abused by their father for a number of years in May of 1989 one of the brothers is threatened with being disowned by that father in the summer of 1989 the other brother returns to the family home having suffered a disastrous semester at a university which had previously expelled him for a year when that son comes home his parents areed on two separate occasions that he's on disciplinary and academic probation two days before the parents are killed one of the brothers has an uneventful tennis lesson at the family home on that same day the day of the uneventful tennis lesson these two brothers travel two hours from Los Angeles to a gun store in San Diego and using identification which is not theirs Forge a signature create an address and purchase two shotguns the day before the killings they go on a tri with their parents during which nothing eventful happens at all at this point I'm going to have to Hype is not this Cas the nature of your objection is U not the uh proper one but the court is going to sustain the objection in nature that it's an improper hypothetical not on the basis of the nature of this objection but just it's an improper hypothetical Dr bures you're familiar with the fact that the defendants made up their you're familiar with their claim that they made up The Alibi after the shooting is that correct I'm familiar with what they stated happened afterwards yes did you consider that all at all remarkable in light of what you say they went through the week before the shooting that they were able to think up that alibi after this traumatic event of shooting their parents in fear well that's an interpretation that I wouldn't necessarily make what inter they made it up what interpretation would you make of the fact that they say they thought of The Alibi after the shooting what interpretation do you give to that well they had first of all the state that they were in if that's if you want to take it as an alibi as I think we've already gone over that's hardly an alibi that's going to work and it didn't work I think that's the more important thing is that it didn't work Dr burges do you know what cycle Babble is do you know what Cy B is I have nothing right any redirect do you know what a prosecutor trying to argue their case who witnesses Dr burges I all right let's just State your next question yes you believe Eric Mendez when he tells you he was molested by his father for 12 years don't you yes I do and you believe Eric Mendez when he tells you that it was that molestation that ultimately led to the unraveling of this family yes and um Do You Believe that because you're getting paid $100 an hour by the taxpayers of the uh County of Los Angeles to be a witness in this case no I do not why do you believe him there's several reasons why I believe him one the statement that he gives regarding his abuse matches much of the criteria that I always use in evaluating statements and second of all which is probably equally important is that the information that I have regarding the father who is the named abuser in this situation certainly has characteristics that very much fit in with the type of person that would do this all right now when you talk about about the type of person that would do this I think we've indicated there's no set profile for a an incest perpetrator that is correct um when Eric Mendez told you the specific details um including things said things not said actions taken of the 12 years of sexual molestation did the actions and behaviors that he ascribed to his father fit other information you had about Jose Menendez yes it did is that the pattern that you were referring to of consistency between how Jose Mendes treated people in other aspects of his life and how he operated as a child molester sister what was it that fit the pattern you've testified that the information from Eric fit a pattern yes it fit uh the pattern that one sees generally that I've described in terms of access Etc but it also contains the characteristics that would need to be present for the um secrecy to be maintained for the acts to be maintained all of those features um also when he described how his father behaved in the context of the sexual activity was that consistent or inconsistent with information you had about the father's behavior in other aspects of his life yes it was in consistent now you're aware of the fact that Eric Mendez testified for I think the better part of 10 days in this trial yes and Mrs banich brought to you one fact involving confusion about where he had the conversation about purchasing a handgun is that right AR sustained as to form the question and the answer is you're aware that he testified for 10 days yes in your cross- examination just now you remember Mrs banic bringing to your attention um the testimony concerning where it was that he had a conversation on Friday that led him to learn there was a twoe waiting period for the purchase of a handgun yes and you indicated that one explanation for um Eric mendez's confusion on that point or his being wrong which I believe also testified to did he not yes okay was that he has a uh a name a naming problem yes and did you see in other aspects of his testimony a similar naming problem yes uh with respect for example to the purchase by his mother of a rifle did that piece of evidence indicate a naming problem yes it did and with respect to what states various cities are in did that indicate a naming problem yes it did now in your opinion if someone is going to make up a story like that does he have to name the place at all no he does not now are you assuming in your analysis of the significance or lack of significance of that testimony that in fact he was at a different story than the big five objection calls for conclusion part witness suain well Mrs bazan asked you for your opinion of whether or not his testimony in that regard was significant yes and you indicated it wasn't because you know he has a naming problem yes does that mean that you assume he said he was at a different store no over answer stand is there another analysis that you have applied to that information uh to explain the cognitive dissonance if you will between saying big five and they're not being real handguns being sold we assume we yet to hear that evidence at big five yes and what's the other analysis of them he could have been at that store and misunderstood these guns and looked at one and and assumed it was another one not being familiar with guns and in your experience you've had a great deal of experience have you not in um understanding how people's memory works in your role as an evaluator as a therapist yes to people have photographic memories for conversations occurring years before not necessarily well do they tend to have line forline literal memories not not for years before now now you have alluded to um Eric mendez's statements to the police on both uh August 21st and September 17th is having some kind of special significance to you yes I have and did they have significance with respect to Eric's tendency to tell the truth yes they did and would you explain to the jury no strike that you heard Mrs banic ask Dr Tyler for example if Eric lied to the police do you remember that yes I did in your opinion on balance in evaluating those two statements did Eric Mendez lie to the police imper opinion toate what is significant to you about the statements of August 21st and September 17th what is significant to me um more so in the September uh because it's a longer interview is that there was one misstatement made about seeing a Batman movie but more likely than not not only were the statements true but the statements placed him at the scene of the crime and that some of the statements were indicators both of confession as well as guilt now when you're saying that the statement placed him at the scene of the crime obviously he was at the scene of the crime that he and his brother called 911 is that what you mean no that's not what I mean what do you mean he was also at the death scene and are you saying that he's telling the police I was there when my parents were killed yes I believe that how does he do that he does that because he uh several other the statements speak to sensory stimulation and memory and specifically by that I mean the smelling of the smoke uh that does come through both on the first uh interview he says he smell smoke later in the interview a few pages later he says that something about being 4 hours before so clearly being able to smell smoke is something that he would have had to have been there to have smelled okay so if I understand you say he is actually giving them these clues that he's there yes he is and what follow-up questions do the officers ask in August and September to his Revelation that he both saw and SM smoke irrelevant right as to the objection it's irrelevant objection suain well is there any further discussion do the police ask Su as a crime scene evaluator if the suspect told you that he was not at the scene of the crime he had arrived two hours after the shooting and yet he smelled smoke and saw smoke um as a person who's evaluating crime scenes would that be of significance to you Foundation sustain I'd like to approach on this issue you're on there's no need she has no expertise in gunshot uh gunshots or use of firearms you said that OB I don't believe that's well that's not the issue of H which it would seem to be so objection go ahead you reading my mind now as well I try such talent go ahead ask the next question you understood that the implication of Mrs bazan's statements was that Eric nandes was lying to you did you not yes you understood from her recitation of other questions that she's implying that he is a liar over in talking to the police in this case yes do you find instances where he is virtually confessing sustain the answer do you find instances where he is telling the police the truth about family the same truth that he told youant did he tell you the truth that he killed his parents and how it happened I would like toach all right we're about to resume just uh a point of reference ladies and gentlemen um we had anticipated let me back up the lawyers told me that they would finish this examination this morning and we're still at it uh this afternoon so um uh it's taken quite a bit longer than anticipated and it's unfortunate because we had the other jury come in uh today and we had expected to get to them this morning and we're still this this afternoon so they're waiting on the wing so hopefully we'll finish this fairly quickly so we can get on with uh the next phase of the trial and as we finish with this witness I'll give you little more information about the scheduling and your situation right you may continue your examination okay would you uh relate to us which things that Eric said Eric Mana said to the police on the 17th were significant in your evaluation of him yes um on nove on uh setember 17th on I'm just to start reading just tell us what was significant if you need to R those are that's the statement itself that you've marked yes okay go right ahead okay on page a it's a pair of jeans I have like lumps here and then he says a hole comes out here back here and a hole comes out back here almost like a bullet hole or something now What's significant that is telling the police that he has jeans that may have a bullet hole this is the first spontaneous statement he's made in eight pages and he goes on and explain that he really wants to show the police officer these genes I need to strike he really wants to show his conclusion on the part of objection to staying that portion of the answer is St does he tell the police he wants to show them the Chans yes he does okay what's the next significant thing okay the next significant point is where he talks about uh there was a lot of smoke in the room right and the next is from what I remember I mean I thought about it three million times in my mind it wasn't loud did you notice the TV and then he goes into the okay point off the TV let me point out to you Dr you have just to clarify which uh statement is this the one the night of the uh shooting uh no this is uh September 17 newe the New Jersey interview Dr B you don't have to read the statement you can summarize the particular piece of it that you're relying on now this particular that you just talked about where he said he's thought about it 3 million times does that have any and he had talked about the smoke in the room does that have any significance to you yes it does and what does that tell you it's a recurring intrusive thought that is specifically about what he saw okay and would you expect that in recurring intrusive thought about what he saw if this was a cool calculated planned homicide for money prop is that significant in your conclusion the prosecution's just been probing that this was not that this was a crime of high emotionality and low thinking yes why because if he had high thinking low emotionality this would not be something that would be coming into his mind it would have been done if it was a plan it would have been done it would have been over with and it wouldn't have been thought about three million times in a 3we period are you finding in that statement that there is a traumatic effect of this incident on AR yes and would you expect a crime that was planned for the purpose of money to have a traumatic effect objection improper opinion over no I did not expect that what is the next um indication in that statement that you or the next statement by Eric Mendez in that statement that you found significant okay on the same page as I smell the smoke every day and is that like the previous statement yes but he repeats it he didn't have to okay um again uh just going on to the next page he now gives a description it was like a slow Haze the room was like dark yellow it was like a full slick Haze and sitting from there what I remember so he goes now into what he sees as well as what he smells okay what's the significant of he now telling the police this three times that he saw the smoke and he saw the haze he is really telling what's in his I mean this is his telling what's in his mind okay so and this says that he is right back at that he's traumatized he's reliving it in his sens senses so he's those are the things that when you go into that trauma response your senses kind of take over and that's what um you remember things like what you smell and what you saw what you heard those are no not always reliable but that is what you have to um take to understand what's going on crime scene and do you think this is part of the story that he and his brother were supposed to tell the police you had any well Mrs banic asked you about his ability to tell this story that he and his brother had decided to tell the police after the crime remember that have any indication that as part of the story they were going to tell the police that they saw smoke and smelled smoke no is that the kind of pre-planned Alibi that you're familiar with with organized Killers no do organized Killers try to give away the fact that they've been at the scene of the crime at the time of death improper based on your research in the literature to organized Killers give away the fact that they're present at the time of death same OB sustain you've talked about just to to seg you off here for a second talked about this notion that what uh Eric and L Mendes told the police back going to the movies and then going to meet somebody in Santa Monica do not fit your definition of an alibi yes did any part of that story okay that that they told that we went to the movies and we went to Santa Monica actually cover them for the time of the shooting improper opinion call for conion rephrase a question yes what is an alibi an alibi is something that uh you you give so that it covers you for a period of time when something happened it means you're someplace else someplace else yes okay and it's a way to establish is it not that you're someplace else yes okay now are you aware of the fact that in this state they don't lock the doors to movie theaters well the question is is she aware of that fact I'm not well have you ever been in a movie theater we've been locked in no is it your understanding and belief that if you go into a movie theater even in Los Angeles you can leave you can leave okay and is it your notion of an alibi to tell the police that you were at some place to meet somebody when you didn't meet the person right that doesn't make sense and when the person will know that you weren't there at the time that the shooting occurred yes is that your idea of an alibi no that's not my idea of an alibi now is it necessary in order to create an alibi that you have to create a Ruckus in a residential neighborhood with two shotguns no and Mrs Baner suggested in her question that the they use shotguns to make a lot of noise yes does that make sense to you with respect to creating an alab sustained as the formal question is that something that you believe is uh Preparatory to creating an alibi no is that Preparatory to getting caught red-handed is that the kind of activity that youve categorized as a disorganized crime scene with a high risk of detection yes now you have indicated that in making uh your assessment or evaluation of Eric Mendez and in assessing his credibility whether you believe what he's telling you you considered the fact that he's in jail faced with a very serious crime yes I did is it your opinion that uh because a person in is in jail he could not have been sexually molested by the person he killed no is it your opinion that there is usually a reason or a cause for homicide yes is it your opinion in this case that the sexual molestation of Eric Mendez was an originating cause for these homicides yes it is you were asked whether or not all secretive families are families in which incest or abuse is going on yes and I believe you said no that's correct are most however incestuous and abusive families secretive yes they are is Secrets the way that abuse continues yes it is and did you find in examining all the information in this case that this was a high secreted family yes I did can we take that break because I have to make that phone call how much longer do you have I have about 20 25 minutes and you committed to that phone call at this hour I'm committed to the phone call yes but not to what the phone call wants yeah okay let's take a five minute break only five minutes keep on going here so at 5 minutes after the hour we'll continue don't discuss the matter with anyone don't form any final opinions about 5 after 3 is when we return right uh we have all the jurs back you may continue your cross your redirect examination thank you honor concerning the interview that Eric Mendez had with the police on September 17th um was there a passage in that interview that you recall when Eric was talking about when he was little yes and was there something significant to you about that passage in that statement yes what was he without reading it basically what was he telling the police he essentially talked about when he was younger and little and he used to love everything but as one as getting older it gets life is colder and did that uh suggest something to you about what was going on in his state of his mind at that time yes what was that uh this what was going on in his mind had to do with Reflections on what his life had been it's a pretty clear statement of that is it also a reflection of that he has hurt someone yes that certainly is present too do you recall um his asking detective Zer uh two questions during the course of that interview the first one being would the police have shot me if I came out with a gun yes and was that a significant statement to you concerning whether he's part of him at least is telling the truth yes and do you recall his also asking detective Zer whether or not the the police had figured out that it was someone that they meaning his parents knew yes he did say that and does that bear on the same issue yes that bears on the total interview do you recall his telling the police in that statement about his mother having bought a gun and about arguments in the family yes do you recall his telling detectiv Zer in that statement that he wanted to get away from his father that he wanted to go to college and to live at the dorms yes that is in the statement now is there anything that he says in that either the statement of August 21st or the statement September 17th where he is suggesting that any other people bodies or entities may be responsible for the killing of his parents does he say anything about anybody else being involved no he does not does he direct the police to look into any other areas of his parents lives call for conclusion statement are there any words in that statement that tell them look at his business it might be the mob it must have been a burglary anything like that no that is not present in the statement now you indicated that the things that you look to in evaluating Eric's credibility had to do with the context of the statement the details that he gave and how those details fit into your wide understanding of root patterns of child mation is that correct that's correct was there also anything about I think you said on cross-examination you also looked at what you called affect yes what is affect affect is the emotional um response that you can see sometimes called demeanor but it is when you ask a question does the person smile laugh cry frown uh is you know can you read if you will an a motion and in evaluating a person who has uh uh made a statement to you about child abuse are there certain emotional responses that you anticipate or expect if the person is being truthful you yes you generally expect some type of aect or emotion now when you interviewing when you were interviewing Eric Mendez in the jail for these 50 hours um was that a situation in which he was under any extraordinary stress speculations assistant in your opinion was the situation you you were creating the atmosphere along with him were you not yes and were you trying to create an atmosphere of extreme stress no were you trying to create a different kind of atmosphere yes I was and why were you doing that I was trying to create as comfortable an atmosphere as possible so that he would be able to tell me what had happened to him regardless of what the question was with as much uh with fewer defenses than than people usually use defenses uh to be able to be genuine and a motive be able to express his emotions and was he genuine AEM motive and able to express his emotions during those 50 hours of interview sustain repas the question did you find his affect during th that those 50 hours of interview to be appropriate to what he was telling you yes I did and why was it appropriate because depending on what he was talking about he was able to show a fairly good range of emotion and it was matched the type of content He was discussing and did you think that he was acting no I did not what significance do you place if any on the fact that as a high school student he took a drama class I don't place any significance on that now now you have testified that in your opinion um at the time of the shooting of his parents Eric Mendez was uh in a state of extreme fear and operating on the body's survival mechanisms yes is that a mental state no it is not what is it that is a neurobiological state it is a normal adaptive response that the body gives forth when placed in a dangerous situation and in your analysis of the few days preceding the shootings um were there varying levels of fear that in your opinion Eric Mendez was experiencing yes there were and over the course of those days at different times was he in different phases of the fear response yes he was and during the actual shootings was he in that second phase that you've talked about yes he was and is there then a third phase that I think you described he was in right after during the foury year yes there was now Mrs banic has asked you about the Saturday night incident and I think you indicated that was a situation in which he neither fought nor fled that's right what was what state was he in well one of the states was a freezing State he was positioned but not acting and not retreating and that there at all in the fact that he did not get up as Mrs banich had suggested and unlock the door and allow his father in so that he could then shoot him did that have any significance to you on his attitude towards his father yes and what significance did he have the significance is he did not want to shoot his father that's huge now you were asked a question about the sexual preferences if you will of Mr Menendez in every incest family where the incest perpetrator is a natural parent yes okay didn't that natural parent have to have sex with an adult member of the opposite sex in order to have a child's molest generally yes and there are of course well documented cases are there not of fatherson incest yes there are and those fathers obviously had to have sex with a female to produce that son that is correct so that doesn't tell you anything about sexual preference does it no it doesn't Mrs banich asked you if you had ever contacted the prosecution to see if they had any information that you hadn't already been provided with is that correct that's correct you're aware of the fact are you not the prosecution has your report yes I'm aware of that and you're aware are you not that for months the prosecution has had your curriculum V yes I'm aware of that did they ever contact you no they did not did you consider in your evaluation of The credibility of the information that Eric Mendez was giving you the fact that during his testimony none of his evidence concerning sexual molestation was impeached that's correct I understand that now concerning the issue of I have a question if so supposedly the prosecution was totally blindsided by this whole child abuse excuse that they use and um didn't know didn't see it coming however they have how many child abuse and Trauma experts on their witness list so how did they not know that that was going to be their their defense it kind of baffles the mind I don't know I just thinking that sorry the expectation that Eric Mendez had about going to UCLA okay yes um Mrs ban showed you a report from a witness who has not yet testified in this case is that correct that is correct are you aware of other reports from other Witnesses who indicated that it was Mrs Menendez who wanted Eric to go to Berkeley and Mr Menendez who insisted he go to UCLA that was my understanding now I think you testified at one point that over the course of those few days before the shooting there was sort of a gradual increase or heightening in the fear level that is correct in your opinion from Tuesday night when L Menendez indicated that he would talk to Dad if you will about the molestation of Eric through Sunday night was there a constantly increasing level of fear yes there was and were there moments when that new level would Abate somewhat yes there were and then would something else happen that would raise it to yet another level yes that is correct and is is that why you talk about the events of Sunday night being cumulative yes it is when you were analyzing um all the information that you had and particularly the inform well St that I think you indicated that in in response to a question from Mrs banage concerning those five critical factors in those days that you didn't just analyze um you didn't just make an uh render an opinion on what Eric was feeling if you will at the time of the shootings based on those five days but um on everything else you had looked at that is correct and what did you mean by that what I meant by that was uh I went through all of the materials that had come in from the prosecution side uh all of the interviews that I could have available especially the police interview um any kinds of reports that were available and when you're talking about the the consistency of the behavior of Eric Mendez during those last few days are you viewing that through the prism if you will of his lifelong relationship with his parents yes I am now what was your understanding if any concerning when the particular bed that Eric had moved from The Beverly Hills house to his house was purchased I don't know when it was purchased so you don't know how long he had owned that no I don't do you believe in I mean in your professional opinion um you have talked about children who are the victims of abuse developing coping mechanisms rescue fantasy other mechanisms correct yes um is it common that that among these children that there is a point particularly in adolescent when for whatever reason they just cannot take it anymore yes and did you see such a point being reached in Eric mendez's line yes and what was that point the point was um certainly at at the at the point that he was preparing to get out on his own and go to school go to college and so he had had a mechanism to get him to that point yes he had and when that mechanism failed what did he have when that mechanism failed he was completely um all of his hopes and all of his wishes were now collapsed and that would now require a rethinking or a re uh trying to find some new way of coping and given the history of his family and its interactions was his turning to his brother a a logical or an appropriate or a predictable thing that he would do under those circumstances can how do you understand his turning to his brother at that time I saw this as a logical choice for him someone he found in the family he had always um idolized his older brother there certainly has been testimony about how much he would write about his brother and this was a very solid um bond that he now was working on to um get him out of that situation and to move forward and from the perspective of how he was raised in his family was it an irrational act for Eric Mendez to rely on his older brother no sustain the answer was it an understandable act given the history of this family same same did he have in your opinion based on everything you know anyone else that it would have been logical for him to turn to uh no now you were asked by Mrs banic about Dr oil and this waiver that Mrs banic mentioned yes you recall Dr ail himself admitting that there were other waivers besides the one that was admitted into evidence yes I remember that and did you I think you testified that um you could understand a a child molester allowing his child to go to a psychologist particularly in the context where there's going to be waivers of confidential confidentiality is that correct that is correct you had talked about this pattern of of molestation and incest particularly behaviors in families of one where efforts are made to make sure the child keeps the secret yes as the child gets older do the strategies us change yes and why is that because as the child develops there going to be additional uh aspects that come into into being and so that there can be a remodification of some of the coping what worked younger may not work when they're older I'm talking about it though from the perspective of the perpetrator if you will if a child has lived with a secret and as far as the perpetrator knows kept the secret for year in and year out and is now an adolescent okay yes is it more likely or less likely that that child is now trained to keep the secret oh yes the child will keep the secret yes so would there be less anxiety about the child deing the secret at that point yes sustain the answer do you think Jose Mendez well do you think any child molester in an incest family would be as concerned about a child who would kept the secret for 10 years versus one who had not sustain did you see based on everything you knew about this family any particular risk to Jose Menendez that the secret was going to be revealed by sending Eric Mendez to a do oil who would go along with a non-confidential therapy of an adolescent would you ever take an adolescent into therapy where you suspected or you had reason to suspect abuse and agree to share that therapy with a parent irrelevant is that appro practice why didn't okay U you indicated you didn't contact Dr oil correct did you have a lot of material concerning Dr oil's relationships with a number of different people besides Mr Mendez yes I did and did you read all that material yes I do and you said that you uh believe that the notes that you had of Dr oil's were not original notes but reconstructed from memory is that correct that is correct are those notes upon which you as a professional would ever rely no they're not would you rely on the opinion of Dr o based on everything you know about him no I would not I have nothing further on any cross I'm gonna object to that that is absolutely untrue and question let me hear the question and I would like toach on this all right again you're arguing matter I didn't hear what she said but they're about to go argue I think and I don't think it comes before you do approach which is obvious need to approach so that is denied the question is withdrawn you may ask another question why did it just go black and white or TVs have an issue do you understand that your report has not made available toose shortly before question you ask the question you didn't hear it Dr B do you understand that your report has not made available to prosecution until shortly before understand is question give the r Ru objection over rule you ask the question now go to the same objection over rule objection over rule say you're sting proposition 115 objection you the question yes um my understanding is my report was made available before my testimony I don't know precisely how many how long but I know it was made available before I testified days objection this States the effect right it's a question the answer and during the period of time before your name was made available was it your understanding that you could contact the prosecution and disc question name being all right just rephrase the question Dr will you at Liberty to discuss your of the prosecution prior to your report being made available to prosecution I'm not aware of how how that would work I really don't know I I did not contact prosecution i' already said discy about the cont that's correct why would she she was hired by the defense so why would she be contacting the prosecut for anything anyways that was a dumb question so that is the end of that part four of Dr Anne Burgess we had four wonderful amazing parts from her she was an excellent excellent witness for the defense it is very unfortunate that she wasn't allowed to come back because she had a lot to say towards child abuse and the trauma and effects that come with it and if anybody should know it is her she's uh the victimology queen so that's what I'm going to call her from now on um what was it I wanted to tell you because I was talking about I lost my link um because I was saying that she teaches so she is a professor at Boston College Canal conell School of Nursing and here are the classes that she teaches courses in victimology forensic science forensic mental health case studies in forensics and forensic science lab I want to take them all let me know in the comments which class you would prefer you know what I might put up a poll and ask you guys what class you would uh prefer to take of hers um I think that would be interesting to hear your guys uh feedback so um yeah look for the poll and I will see you guys in the next one thank you so much for watching take care and I'll see you uh Tuesday bye guys if you've been impacted by a true crime and would like your story told in your own words or if you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted or accused of a crime please write to crime in court channel@ gmail.com and tell us your real True Crime encounters thanks for watching [Music]