6.Kate Butler — Direct/Cross
132 linesJUDGE EVERETT: Please call your next witness, State.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: State calls Kate Butler.
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, I've advised Ms. Cappleman --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Objection. Can we approach?
JUDGE EVERETT: You may.
(Sidebar conference held as follows:)
JUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: There's a stipulation and I would ask that it be put on the record at sidebar, not in the presence of the jury. I'm entitled to prove my case. The stipulation isn't going to prevent me from calling this witness.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Zelman?
MR. ZELMAN: I never said it was going to prevent you. I think that the jury should hear that we don't disagree that was my client's handwriting.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: That would be a closing argument then.
JUDGE EVERETT: AS to that point, this is something you're just going to cross-examine the witness about, correct?
MR. ZELMAN: I'd have one question, maybe two.
JUDGE EVERETT: what is the stipulation that you-all wish to place on the record?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: TI don't wish to place any on the record, but if the defense wants to stand up and say they're not contesting their client wrote the script, that would be argument. TI don't think it's appropriate to put that on the record in the presence of the jury while the witness is technically on the stand.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. If you have no cross for this witness, have you spoken with your client concerning this issue?
MR. ZELMAN: We've spoken with her since before we knew the identity of the expert. It's one of the issues we discussed shortly after all of this was disclosed in April.
JUDGE EVERETT: As a matter of strategy, you have discussed with her how this witness will be examined or not examined?
MR. ZELMAN: Yeah.
JUDGE EVERETT: And she understands the strategy and this is the direction she wants to go?
MR. ZELMAN: There's no dispute about our client writing it.
JUDGE EVERETT: Very well. As to that point, if you wish to inquire of that with the witness, you certainly may. If there is no cross, then the State will just have its direct. Let's move forward.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)
JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your right hand to be sworn.
whereupon, KATE BUTLER was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
KATE BUTLER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may take your seat. Please speak loudly and clearly. You can adjust the microphone as you need to.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Did you bring your computer with you?
KATE BUTLER: I did not. I brought my flash drive.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Perfect. May I retrieve that from you?
Please introduce yourself and spell your name.
KATE BUTLER: Good afternoon. My name is Kate Butler; K-a-t-e, B-u-t-l-e-r.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How are you employed, ma'am?
KATE BUTLER: I'm a senior crime laboratory analyst at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the Pensacola Regional Operations Center in the Forensic Document Examination section.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How long have you been so employed?
KATE BUTLER: Sixteen years.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what are your duties there?
KATE BUTLER: My duties consist of examining items of evidence, including handwriting, typewriting, inks, papers, and office machines, in order to determine source or authenticity of a -- of a questioned document.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: what training and education do you have to perform those duties?
KATE BUTLER: I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in forensic chemistry from the University of Mississippi. I completed the two-year, two-phased training program at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in the Forensic Document Examination section. This training program consisted of two phases. The first phase was mostly reading academic texts, published articles, and research on all aspects of forensic document examination.
Once I successfully completed an all-encompassing oral board and passing all the written and practical examinations, I was then allowed to move to phase two of training, which was supervised case work in which I worked actual cases under the direct supervision of the certified analysts in the section. Once I successfully completed the mock trial at the end of that phase, I was then allowed to move to independent case work, which I have been doing ever since.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And have you previously testified as an expert in the area of forensic document examination?
KATE BUTLER: I have.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: About how many times?
KATE BUTLER: Approximately 25 times.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what is forensic document examination?
KATE BUTLER: Forensic document examination is a highly specialized forensic discipline in which we examine items of evidence, including handwriting, typewriting, inks, papers, or office machines, in order to determine the source or authenticity of that document; "source" meaning, was it written by a particular person, printed by a particular office machine; “authenticity,” is it genuine, is it counterfeit, or has it been altered in some way?
when I complete my examinations of the evidence, I then write a report as to my findings, and when necessary, testify to those.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: How is handwriting identifiable to a particular individual?
KATE BUTLER: The best way to explain how handwriting is identifiable is to ask each of you to remember back to when you first learned to write. You typically learned in the second or third grade using a copybook. You learned to make repeated iterations of each of the letters of the alphabet, as well as the numbers, until you had the basic model of each letter and each word, lowercase and uppercase. You learned to put them on a baseline, you learned to make uppercase letters taller than lowercase letters.
However, we've all deviated -- as adults, we've all deviated from that original copybook style we were taught. And it's those deviations that are the individual handwriting characteristics that I examine in a questioned handwriting sample and then compare to a known handwriting sample to see if the same characteristics are in -- from the questioned are present in the known and are similar to one another.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Once you've made a comparison between a known sample and a questioned sample, how do you report your results?
KATE BUTLER: we have several levels of conclusions that we use in the -- in the field. we have on one side, the "identification." And this is the opinion of which the examiner has reviewed all the material and has found that the questioned writing was, in fact, written by the known writer. And at the other side of the -- other end of the scale is “elimination.” And that's after reviewing all the material, the examiner has found that there's significant differences and that it is not the writer.
Down from each of those, we have a "highly probably wrote" and a “highly probably did not write." Then we have a "probable wrote, probably did not write, indications may not have -- or indications may have written, indications may not have written," and in the middle is our neutral, "could neither identify nor eliminate” opinion.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. I'm going to approach and show you what I've marked as 59 -- introduced into evidence 59A and introduced into evidence 62.
JUDGE EVERETT: Ms. Cappleman, are you going to want Ms. Butler to open your bags?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, sir. TI don't think that'll be necessary.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. Go ahead.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Showing you State's Exhibit 59 for identification purposes only.
Do you recognize that exhibit?
KATE BUTLER: I do.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what did you do with that exhibit?
KATE BUTLER: On this particular exhibit, I inventoried to describe the contents of it. I then digitally scanned it and then used it as the purported known writing of Donna Adelson in my handwriting comparison.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. And State's Exhibit 59A, does that exhibit contain the scanned pages that you selected from 59 to use as your known sample?
KATE BUTLER: Some of the pages, yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes. we did have one additional page in there?
KATE BUTLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: All right. Thank you. And State's Exhibit 62, is this the questioned sample that you used to compare against the known sample in State's Exhibit 59?
KATE BUTLER: Yes. These are the images of the questioned document.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Did you prepare a PowerPoint presentation to assist the jury in understanding your testimony here today?
KATE BUTLER: I did.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, may I publish?
JUDGE EVERETT: You may. This is only a demonstrative? You're not seeking to --
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's a demonstrative.
BY MS. CAPPLEMAN:
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I don't know where I put my clicker, but if you'll just tell us when to advance the slide, we'll do that.
KATE BUTLER: I will.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. All right. So let's start with the next slide, please.
Okay. So these are just the two exhibits that you compared as we just discussed?
KATE BUTLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Next slide, please. Okay. The questioned handwriting sample. Next slide. Okay. wait. Go back one.
Okay. So what does this show?
KATE BUTLER: This is also -- this is the third page of the three pages of questioned writing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do you select certain characters or words for comparison? How do you start?
KATE BUTLER: I look and examine every handwriting characteristic that is available for me to examine. I notate as I examine the questioned and known materials, so whenever I find a particular characteristic, I may note where that particular characteristic was found within the known writing. However, I compare all of the questioned individual characteristics within the handwriting to the known characteristics within the known.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: So we're not just picking out, like, oh, she makes her Ss this way. You're looking at every single character?
KATE BUTLER: Every single handwritten character, yes. I examine all of it and compare it to the known writing to see if each individual characteristic is present -- that is present in the questioned is present in the known or not, and if it's a similarity or if it is different in any way.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And all of that funnels into the totality of your conclusion?
KATE BUTLER: That's correct. At the end of the complete side-by-side examination of all of the questioned handwriting with all of the known handwriting, I then evaluate all of the observed characteristics and then I make a conclusion as to the authorship.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Next slide, please. And let's skip to the next one.
All right. Show us -- tell us what we're looking at here. I'm going to look for the pointer while you're talking.
KATE BUTLER: This is a demonstrative court chart. It has some of the words and letters from the questioned documents.
Thank you so much.
So I have looked through the questioned documents, of which there were three pages. I found certain words and cropped those words digitally and placed them on this chart. I did the same thing with some of the -- some of the words and letters from the known writing. And I have put similar words and letters so that I can better explain how it is that I am able to, first of all, choose an individual handwriting characteristic and then how I'm able to show that it is found within the known writing and that it is similar.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does the next slide indicate the points of comparison on these particular characters?
KATE BUTLER: Yes. The next slide has some arrows and other markings which are pointing out some of the individual characteristics that I found in my examination and showing how they are similar between the questioned writings and the known writings.
Oh, I apparently clicked it.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: I clicked it. Go ahead.
KATE BUTLER: So would you like me to describe each of the characteristics?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yeah. Thank you.
KATE BUTLER: So beginning with the first word and the uppercase Ww of the word "why," we see the overall structure of the uppercase W has a very small tick at the bottom near the baseline where it appears that there's a little bit of an upstroke and then a very small tick and then a downstroke. That kind of makes the bottom of the w. And that particular shape of it being sort of flat on one side but pointed or angled on the other side of the -- of the W on the -- on the side that's next to the H, the right side of the w, has a bit of a curve, whereas, the left side does not have that curve.
So I observed that similar structure in the word “wall” within the known writing. So you can see on the left side, very flat, but on the right side, a very sharp angle up to the top. And then the top ends with a bit of a tick to the right, and that's pointed out in both the red arrow, the first red arrow in the uppercase w of the word "why" in the Questioned column, as well as in the uppercase w of the word "why" on the Known column.
In the Questioned column in the word "why," I have also pointed out the lowercase Y. The structure of it creates almost a loop. It's not entirely connected, the U of the Y and the staff of the Y, but it almost -- it almost is. But that pen lift where the stroke stops, lifts, and then comes back down to the piece of paper, that whole structure and then the two separate strokes, that particular lowercase Y was found in the word "they." And you can see that in the Known column, the second row where you see the lowercase Y, the two strokes where there's a bit of a pen drag as it lifts and then forms the staff of the yY.
Looking again to the Questioned column, the word "they," you can see the crossbar of the T moving up towards the lowercase H's staff and then almost forms a loop again. There's a bit of a pen lift there between the connecting strokes of that crossbar of the T and the upper -- the lowercase H's staff.
You can see that same characteristic with the crossbar moving into lowercase H and almost connecting to the staff but leaving a pen drag or a pen lift in that area. You can see that in the -- in the word "their" in the lowercase T and H combination in the Known column.
I've also pointed out in the Questioned column in the word "they," the lowercase E. The lowercase E was formed by starting in the middle of the letter, and instead of making a loop or an eyelet formation, which is typically how our lowercase E is made, it remains open as if just a tick mark before it begins its overarching structure back to the baseline. So that sort of open loop E was also found in the word "ache," which you can see in the Known column where you can see the eyelet of the E is open and not rounded at all. It's sort of a sharp retrace of the E before it forms the circular part.
Like I pointed out in the word "why" in the Questioned column, I've also pointed out the lowercase Y in "they" in the Questioned column. So this is a second variation of the lowercase Y. So one variation of the lowercase Y has a straight staff; the bottom of it goes straight. Another variation that this writer had was the lowercase Y in which those strokes, the bowl of the Y and the staff are actually connected here in a loop formation. And the bottom of the staff creates a curve at the bottom, whereas, the lowercase Y in the word "why" remains straight. So this particular natural variation, the lowercase Y with a loop and a curve, this was found in the word "why" in the Known column on the first line.
Natural variations are found throughout people's writing because of our lack of machinelike precision to be able to produce writing exactly the same way every time. Natural variations occur throughout our writing. So seeing different variations of a lowercase Y or any letter and seeing those same variations present in the known is additional information for me to use in my conclusion.
So going to the next word in the Questioned column, it is the word "Miami." The uppercase M in "Miami" has an interesting structure. The staff of it has an open loop formation, so it looks like a little bit of a bubble in that staff on the left side of the M. This same formation of that uppercase M was found within the known writing, and I have it pointed out in the word "me" on the -- in the Known column.
KATE BUTLER: One of the other things I wanted to point out in the word "Miami" is the height difference between the lowercase I and the lowercase A. This particular writer, when writing the I-A together, tended to make the lowercase I lower than the lowercase A, whereas, you can see it's sort of floating above the baseline. That particular characteristic was also found within the words "Miami" within the known writing, which I have pointed one out on the right side of the column in the word -- in the second "Miami," but it is also seen in the first version of "Miami" as well, just not pointed out with an arrow.
The lowercase A in "Miami," I'm pointing out two different characteristics with that lowercase A. I'm pointing out the structure of the lowercase A kind of having a bit of an open top -- there's a space between the top of it and the staff of it, kind of leaving a little bit of an open circle -- and the structure of it being kind of -- having a bit of a hat to it. That particular characteristic was found in the lowercase A of the word “tenants,” which is about eight lines down on the Known column.
One of the other characteristics I'm pointing out with the lowercase A in "Miami" is how the ending stroke of the A sweeps under the lowercase M in "Miami" next to it. And that particular characteristic, which was found in the word "Miami" in the questioned, was also found within the word "Miami" within the known writing. And you can see it in the first version of "Miami" on the fourth line in the Known column.
Moving on to the word "and" in the Questioned column, the uppercase -- the overall uppercase structure of the letter is formed with only one stroke, so beginning on the left side and going -- moving up from the baseline creating sort of a triangle. But whenever that stroke comes down to the baseline, the right side of the A, it causes a retrace that forms the crossbar of the A. So it is actually one stroke, almost like a triangle, except the bottom, instead of meeting the left staff, comes up and forms a curved crossbar of the A. And that particular letter formation was found within the known writing also in the uppercase A you can see in the Known column on the sixth row.
The spacing relationship between the lowercase N and the lowercase D is the next characteristic that I have pointed out within my demonstrative aid. So the fact that the N is sort of diving into that lowercase D is found within the word "dividend." You can see at the end how the -- at the end of the word "dividend," the lowercase N is sort of piercing through the loop of the D, the bottom of the D. And that particular spacing characteristic was found within the questioned, as well as the known.
And I also wanted to point out the open loop of the D, so the bottom of the D, the bowl of the D, is open. whenever that character was created, it started at the top, went towards the baseline, then created a counterclockwise curve. But instead of coming and meeting the staff, it stayed open and just stayed at the baseline. So pointing out that particular characteristic of that open bowl lowercase D can be found in the word "card" in the Known column.
The next word in the Questioned column is the word "wants." The lowercase N-T-S is where I'm going to focus on, although there are more characteristics that I have not pointed out. The lowercase N and § are nearly touching, which is odd because you -- whenever you're taught to learn the copybook style, you're taught to leave an even amount of Spacing between each letter in a word. So the S$ touching the N, which is two letters outside of the word, was an interesting characteristic that I found in the word "tenants" on the eighth row on the Known column. You can also see it in the word "comments," though I don't have it pointed out with a red arrow, but the N and the S look like as if they are touching.
The combination of the crossbar T to the lowercase S$ to the formation of lowercase S in the word "wants" on the -- in the Questioned column, that particular characteristic was found within the word "comments" where you can see the lowercase T's crossbar continues out to the right and then forms a loop as it makes a counterclockwise loop around and then comes closer to the baseline and then kind of goes underneath the lowercase T to touch the lowercase N. That particular combination was found within the known writing in "tenants," as well as "comments."
KATE BUTLER: The next word in the Questioned column is the word "whatever." The lowercase W in the word "whatever," there's a line underneath it. what that is indicating is that the left side of the w is actually lower on the baseline than the right side of the w. And that particular characteristic was also found within the known writing in the Known column eight within the word "wants." I didn't use this laser the whole time. The lowercase Ww in the word "wants" on the Known column, the left side of it is much closer to the baseline than the right side.
Moving on to the next characteristic, it is the Spacing between the lowercase T and the lowercase E in the word "whatever." The T crossbar is touching the lowercase E. That particular characteristic was found within the word "after." And the formation of the V is a very blocky shape, with the left side being lower than the right side. The bottom kind of creates more of a square rather than a curve or a V-shape retrace. That particular characteristic was also found within the known writing in the word "deliver."
Another characteristic within the word "whatever" in the Questioned column is the combination of the E-R. The lowercase E, as it ends, creates the beginning stroke of the lowercase R, connecting the E and the R at the bottom. And that particular characteristic was also found within the word "deliver" and the word "after" in the known writing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And do these examples comprise all of the characteristics that you looked at or are these just a few examples?
KATE BUTLER: These are just a few examples of some of the questioned characteristics that I examined and found to be similar within the known writing.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And what conclusion did you reach in reference to the question, did Donna Adelson write the script contained in State's Exhibit 62?
KATE BUTLER: I identified the known writing purportedly written by Donna Adelson as to be the writer of the questioned handwriting.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: And is that the highest level of conclusion that you reach in your reporting?
KATE BUTLER: Identification is the highest level, yes, ma'am.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: One moment.
No further questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination?
MR. ZELMAN: We've never contested that our client wrote that document. No questions.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may step down.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Move to strike the comment, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: The comment is struck.
Members of the jury, you are to consider what came from the witness stand as the evidence.
You may step down.
KATE BUTLER: Thank you.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: This witness is released, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: Have a good day. You are released.
Please call your next witness.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May we have a short recess to set up for the next witness, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: That's fine.
Members of the jury, the bailiff will take you to the jury room. we'll resume at 3:35.
(Jury exits.)
(A recess in the proceeding.)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: May we approach, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: You may.
(Sidebar conference held as follows:)
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Judge, we were just discussing over the break Your Honor's ruling in reference to Witness Bernhardt, and defense is under the impression that your ruling only went to cross-examination, meaning they're still free to argue in closing that Drina Bernhardt did not receive offers of compensation from their client. If that's the case, I think I am entitled to put on that second wire in which there are concessions made that the client did, in fact, make those offers.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Zelman, go ahead.
MR. ZELMAN: We would certainly disagree with the representation that the wires confirm offers were made, primarily because the 15-minute long phone call that could not be recorded and was not monitored by law enforcement, the only one who's ever said anything about what was said on that recording is Drina Bernhardt.
JUDGE EVERETT: I don't think there was a 15-minute call on State's 134, correct?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: It wasn't recorded. That's what he's referencing. There was another call we failed to record.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. As to any call that essentially does not exist other than what Ms. Bernhardt may know about it, I'm not really sure that goes to any arguments about 134. As to 134 specifically, if there are going to be arguments that there were never an offer of compensation, the State gets to present evidence as to that exhibit.
MR. ZELMAN: Judge, our understanding of your ruling was limited to cross-examination.
JUDGE EVERETT: Cross-examination is one method by which that may be presented, but as far as rebutting whatever takes place during the defense case, that goes to matters of rebuttal which are always present in every case. Defendant says, I wasn't there; in rebuttal, State gets to put on a witness that shows yeah, you were.
On this matter specifically, the Court's ruling as it related to the State introducing it during its case in chief dealt with whether the credibility of Drina Bernhardt was going to be attacked. Saying there was never an offer of compensation is an indirect attack on the credibility of Drina Bernhardt. Is everyone clear on this point?
MS. CAPPLEMAN: The question is, can they wait and just say it in closing? Because I'm going to reserve that unless something else develops. And if they are intending to go into that in closing, I would ask to be permitted to put on that evidence now in my case in chief.
JUDGE EVERETT: The first basis for which it may be offered, again, consistent with the Court's prior ruling, was what would take place during the cross-examination of Drina Bernhardt. During the defense case in chief, if Drina Bernhardt's credibility is attacked at that time, it will be available to you in rebuttal.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Understood. And if all of that -- we get to the end of all that, then it might be ripe for consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to mention in closing.
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. Understood.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you wish to put on any foundation now as to 134, you can -- if you choose to lay it as a part of your case in chief, that's up to you. But, again, the credibility -- or the defense case in chief is really what's going to -- excuse me, cross-examination of Drina Bernhardt, which has come and gone, or what occurs during the defense case in chief, that is going to be the door opener.
MS. CAPPLEMAN: Understood, Judge.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right.
(Sidebar conference concluded.)