July 24, 2008
I recently had and article pointed out to me that I would like to share with the rest of you. The article was written
by Michael Crowley, a senior editor at The New Republic magazine in Washington, D.C., and appeared in the July 2008
edition of Readers' Digest. The title of the article was Trial by Media and in my opinion has an eerie resemblance to
the events and circumstances that Doug Porter and his entire family have gone through. I hope everyone would take the
time to read this article and take it into consideration the next time you come across another of these sensational
stories in the media.
Trial By Media by Michael Crowley
Webmaster
After a little over five hours of deliberation, the Modesto jury came back yesterday, August 4th, 2008 with their verdict of guilty. This stunned the family as well as the loyal friends and supporters who know the truth.
We still hold strong to our faith that we serve the same God today that we served yesterday. While we may not understand everything that God has planned, we still believe that God does indeed have a plan and that with time, it will be revealed, but for now we continue to trust in the Lord.
We truly appreciate the outpouring of support we have received. God bless you all. On behalf of the entire Porter and Dias families, we deeply appreciate your love and prayers.
We stand firm with Doug that he is innocent and that the truth will eventually be revealed to everyone. This is not the first case where an innocent man has been convicted and it won't be the last where the unjustly convicted is one day vindicated.
The closing statement of defense attorney Kirk McAllister started off with the disclaimer and promise to the jury that he would not rail on as long as the prosecution had the previous day. With that said, McAllister moved on pointing out what he described as undercurrents in the prosecution’s case.
The first “undercurrent” example was described by the previously odd display made by prosecutors in transporting Milton Bridges all the way from a bay area prison to display him in chains to the jury merely to testify for ten minutes about a relatively insignificant piece of information. McAllister pointed out that the reasons for such efforts were unclear till Assistant District Attorney John Mayne announced loudly in his closing statements that the supposed reason Doug had helped the man and his son was merely to use him as a “fall guy”. This argument holds no weight due to the fact that Doug never attempted by any stretch of the imagination to imply that Mr. Brides had anything to do with any C.V.M.A. activity.
The next example was prosecutor’s frequent defamation and reference to a “problem” Aaron Porter may have had. McAllister pointed out that the incident, whatever it was, happened while Doug was held in jail awaiting trial, and described it as a cheap tactic to rub a father’s nose in problems in his children’s lives while he is unable to help them or do anything about it.
Next McAllister turned to the subject of the prosecution’s claims that Doug never intended to build a museum by detailing the dozens of meetings, blue prints, and construction projects Doug Porter had unarguably accomplished, not to mention the $72,000.00 Doug contributed to the project by taking out a line of credit against his own home as well as $32,000.00 worth of paving on C.V.M.A. property paid for out of Doug Porter’s personal account.
When it came to addressing the difference of opinion between the two financial experts, McAllister referred to the original trust document written up by trust attorney, Mahlon Ford, which stated that Doug had authority to manage, buy, and sell any or all of Mr. Craig’s property as well as ability to gift, buy, sell, draw, or distribute funds in the AG Edwards accounts.
The next hole shown in the prosecution’s case was the dubious character of their key witnesses. The first witness discussed was “fallen star-witness” James Ten Napel, who even prosecutors admit to being a liar. McAllister went on to point out the truly pathological nature of the many lies in which Ten Napel had been caught.
The next witness discussed was Michelle Pittman, who McAlister described as the “Swiss army knife” of witnesses due to her close relationship and frequent communication with Assistant District Attorney John Baker as well as her readiness to testify about any detail large or small in this case claiming to have been central to everything concerning Mr. Craig and his life. One major problem with Pittman’s claims is that no one but her remembers the close relationship and constant care she claims to have lavished on the elderly man.
Also pointed out was the fact that though Pittman, John Wassum, John Veldhuzen, and other small town locals claim to have been so close to Mr. Craig and have constant complaint about Doug’s progress with the museum project, not one of them at any time ever volunteered to help or lend a hand. The only contribution they made towards their friends “dream’ was copious complaints.
At this point the court broke for lunch. McAllister’s closing statements will continue after the break.
After the noon break, defense attorney Kirk McAllister continued to point out the disreputable nature of the prosecution’s cast of characters. As McAllister continued to expound on the testimony of Michelle Pittman, whom he called the cheerleader for the prosecution, he recalled that his favorite part of her testimony was when Pittman claimed that Doug had employed “hypnotic manipulation” in his control over Frank Craig, who by all accounts was under the control of no one.
Later McAllister pointed out that the Pittman’s hopes of inheriting the Craig ranch were part of the reason for underlying contempt and maliciousness in this case. While Michelle Pittman maintains that it was a known wish of Mr. Craig’s that she inherit the ranch, Mr. Craig’s live-in care giver, Richard Peterson testified that he never heard any comment or wish expressed by Mr. Craig that would back up such claims. Peterson went on to testify that he only began to hear such claims from the Pittmans after Mr. Craig had died.
Next McAllister turned his focus toward Mr. Craig’s lawsuit-happy nephew-in-law, Henry “Bud” Whitney. Whitney’s testimony of cooking a “gourmet” meal enjoyed immensely by all was sharply contrasted by Peterson’s recollections of cooking the dinner himself while Mr. Craig poked fun at Whitney’s delicate stomach and fussy pallet. A much more significant error in Whitney’s story is in his claim that during their last visit Mr. Craig astonished his company by taking an “energetic” walk of eighteen paces around the room followed by some arm exercises and proclamations of angry plans to confront Doug and “make a change”.
Every single witness who has testified in this case that had any knowledge of Mr. Craig’s physical abilities, stated that such a jaunt was far from something of which the convalescing man would have been capable. As for the claims of Mr. Craig’s brewing anger toward Doug, Peterson testified that Mr. Craig was excited and happy about the outing with Doug that day.
McAllister then called the jury to remember that it was Bud Whitney himself who was dissatisfied with police action in this case, and sought to stir the pot by conducting a home spun investigation of his own with the help from various locals who were only to happy to be a part of a juicy story. “Meetings” were held in area homes where malcontents could gather and swap rumors, and take down “information” they believed might kick start a case.
After Whitney’s queries were made, McAllister noted, he put on a public relations blitz, contacting local papers, appearing on the Nancy Grace show and so on.
Several more points were made about the dramatics staged by the prosecution concerning the rocks lying on the canal bank. Numerous sinister insinuations were made about the origins and migration of “the rocks”. Prosecutors claim they were the only rocks on the canal bank in all of Hickman, and must have been planted as a tool in wicked plots. This theory crumbled when detective Copeland showed more than twelve different pictures he had taken of rocks up and down the entire area for miles.
As McAllister closed his arguments he told the jury he was entrusting Doug Porter to them, and asked them to give him justice and find him not guilty.
When McAllister had finished, District Attorney John Mayne had the opportunity to rebut the defense’s statements. The prosecution is allowed the last word because the burden of proof falls on them. In Mayne’s case it wasn’t the last “word”, but last many words. The prosecution once again held forth, disputing every statement in the defense’s close.
By 3:30 the decision about the rest of Doug Porter’s life was handed over to twelve of his peers.
As each of us involved in this case now wait, the Porter family would like to take the opportunity to truly thank all of our friends who have been such a wonderful encouragement and support, most of all we thank you for your prayers. We feel we have been so blessed by your kindness and love, and ask that you continue to pray while the jury works out a decision.
And to those who have actively supported the prosecution and endeavored to further these horrible accusations; while we do not excuse your actions, please know that we do forgive you and pray for peace and good things in your lives. We are not now, and have never been “against” you. We want only to have back the person we love so much and to prove his innocence.
Thank You,
The Porter Family
The entire court day was taken up by the closing statement of Assistant District Attorney John Mayne. The unusually long statements consisted of a detailed overview of the case through the prosecutions eyes. Dozens of documents and pieces of evidence were reviewed a second time but embellished and altered to suit the prosecution’s case.
As in his opening statement, Mayne led off with a one dimensional description of Frank Craig simply as a man who wanted to build a museum. By contrast Mayne described Doug as a “cold, empty man” who only wanted to swindle Mr. Craig out of his money in order to “build an empire”. The most consistent claim made by Mayne was that Doug never attempted at all to build the museum, instead using the money to build his La Grange home and the homes of his children.
Such statements were made despite the fact that the prosecutions own financial expert testified that Doug paid for his home with his own income. A loan was made to Doug’s son but was re-paid in full, and each member of the Porter family living in La Grange had a mortgage and paid for their own home.
Mayne went on to compare expert witnesses on both sides, each time claiming the prosecution witness to be more qualified and intelligent. Financial records, accident reports, and even pictures of Mr. Craig’s dead body were shown as Mayne re-presented his whole case.
Later Mayne went on to disparage some of the parishioners and leaders of Hickman Church, as well as all of Doug’s family and relatives. Nearly every quote and detail was twisted or mis-represented, but still by the end of the day all the insults, accusations and finger pointing fell short of any actual proof.
Mayne ended by instructing the jury as to the order in which he prefer they discus the charges and how he expects them to decide on each, even going so far as to point out the blank where they should write guilty.
From 10:00 am to 4:20pm Mayne gave closing statements in the same disjointed fashion that marked his opening statements. Tomorrow defense attorney Kirk McAllister will give his closing arguments, followed by a (hopefully) brief rebuttal by Mayne before the jury goes in to deliberations.
Ms. Pittman resumed her testimony after the noon break and continued in her claims and vexations concerning Doug Porter and his family. Cross-examination of Ms. Pittman was brief, but extremely interesting, as correspondence between she and Assistant District Attorney John Baker during the case was explored as to whether the relationship exceeded boundaries appropriate between an attorney and witness.
Ms. Pittman testified that she had not been present in court since her original testimony; however she admits to frequent e-mails and communications with John Baker throughout. It made for a slightly awkward moment when Ms. Pittman was asked if in these e-mails she had referred to Assistant District Attorney John Baker as her “rockin’ D.A”, Pittman admitted to using the term but denies having a relationship with Baker.
The testimony of Dave Piazza followed Ms. Pittman’s. Piazza allowed that the life struggles and legal infractions of former Hickman Church parishioners were accurate. This was in reference to Assistant District Attorney Mayne’s previous attempts to prove guilt by association mentioning every legal transgression of every person remotely acquainted with Doug Porter.
Some of the details concerning his parishioners and their personal problems were left out of Doug’s testimony. Dave Piazza explained that this was understandable as he himself felt such information to be privileged and confidential between a pastor or religious leader and a congregant.
Mr. Piazza also went on to explain that many people in the church at one time or another have done things they are not proud of; they are human and therefore imperfect. The policy and feelings of the church, however are not to ostracize such people, but to help them and work with them. It was in this very capacity that Doug often worked with his parishioners and the public.
After Mr. Piazza’s testimony the prosecution rested.
The defense called no rebuttal witnesses, and after a brief recess instructions were read to the jury.
Closing statements will begin tomorrow leaving the jury to decide the fate of Doug Porter.
The morning session of court started out with a bang as Judge Zeff shot down an attempt by the prosecution to use a rebuttal witness as a conduit to present a whole new case to the jury. The prosecution wanted to bring back the pathologist who testified concerning the autopsy as a ruse to imply without proof that Mr. Craig had died in some other manner than they had originally argued.
The prosecution’s attempt was strenuously denied by the Judge, who admonished the pair of Assistant District Attorneys for not stating such an argument while making their case. Assistant District Attorney John Baker responded to this by admitting the “theory” was only a few days old. In the end such an attempt was ruled as improper rebuttal by the Judge, and is yet another example of the district attorney’s office throwing everything they can think of up against the wall to see what sticks. Perhaps such tactics are in lieu of actual evidence?
After the prosecution's defeat the jury was ushered in to hear the testimony of Ray Paul, the owner of Foothill Self Storage. Mr. Paul took the stand only briefly to confirm the contract for storage space with the Porter family. He also looked at photos of the storage units shown by the district attorney to confirm that they were his and that they were all of uniform size. The pictures were not shown to the court.
Next to testify was Dan Ray, former FBI accountant and hired gun for the prosecution. In Mr. Ray’s original testimony some weeks ago he admitted that he had been paid an extra fee of ten to twenty thousand dollars simply to refute the future testimony of defense C.P.A. Gerald Deller.
Today Ray did just that, attempting to poke holes in Deller’s work as much as possible. The largest difference between the findings of the two experts was the classification of the East Side Youth Fund and C&P Investments organizations. Deller did his accounting of these entities by the guidelines that would be appropriate for a subsidiary of a parent organization. Ray's approach was different, opting simply to pretend both organizations were merely additional personal bank accounts of Doug Porter.
The court has already heard testimony from previous witnesses who contributed to or benefited from East Side Youth Fund, a student athlete benefit fund.
Ray went on to testify that the monthly transfer of $1,200.00 from one of Mr. Craig’s account to another was a clear sign of embezzlement. Ray was at a loss to explain the reason the transfers suddenly ceased. It was later brought to Mr. Ray’s attention by Defense Attorney Kirk McAllister that the transferred sums were the same amount as Martin Escobar’s, one of Mr. Craig’s live- in caretakers, monthly income. It was also pointed out that the date the transfers mysteriously cease coincides with the date Mr. Escobar was let go.
These and other such examples of Ray’s lack of familiarity with the case have been his downfall where credibility is concerned. Ray claims to have thoroughly gone over all account activity but somehow was completely taken by surprise today when confronted with checks written from Doug and Vicki's personal account in the amount of $32,000.00 to pay for paving on museum property, as the couple attempted to carry on with Mr. Craig’s wishes even after his death. Prior to being confronted with proof of the payment, Ray had insisted that such transactions had not been made.
It was Mr. Ray’s testimony that he still feels that he has no reason to pause concerning his accounting.
The next rebuttal witness called by the prosecution was Michelle Pittman, whose previous testimony has been widely contradicted by both prosecution and defense witnesses and even her own husband.
Ms. Pittman’s testimony led off with a new grievance that she recalled Doug using some language at Mr. Craig’s funeral implying that his friend was with God. Such comments were apparently offensive to Ms. Pittman, although she was unable to prove Mr. Craig to be the opposite.
Most of the speeches attempted by Ms. Pittman were objected to and sustained as improper rebuttal. Rebuttal testimony is intended to refute specific points of previous testimony. Ms. Pittman’s rebuttal testimony seemed to have no specific aim except to voice her disapproval of anything said or done by Doug or his family.
Ms. Pittman had taken the stand less than 15 minutes before the court broke for lunch. Ms. Pittman’s testimony will resume at 1:30
After the noon break accident re-constructionist, Michael Varat, continued to testify. Varat agreed with defense re-constructionist, Toby Glockler, on many points. Significant points that were agreed upon were that the photos taken by the investigating officers were insufficient to make complete determinations about the vehicles state after striking the rocks, another point agreed upon was that the truck was “in a state of yaw” or sliding sideways indicating a loss of control upon entering the canal.
The main point on which the two men differed was that while Glockler believes Doug may have been going as fast sixty miles per hour at the time of the accident, Varat contends speeds to have been as slow as twenty-eight miles per hour upon entering the water.
As a rebuttal witness, Mr. Varat was hired simply to refute Glockler’s testimony. Though Varat found little fault with Glockler’s analysis, he was paid $15,000.00 dollars for a half day of testimony.
An interesting point was made during cross-examination when Defense Attorney Kirk McAllister pointed out that one of the tire tracks shown after the striking the rocks appeared to indicate the truck may have already begun to slide out of control. Varat seemed somewhat surprised by the findings and admitted that based on the enlarged photo it was a possibility that the truck had begun to slide earlier than originally supposed, though he added that while it is possible he does not believe it to be probable because it would be complete inconsistent with the speed at which he claims Doug was driving. Mr. Varat was excused as a witness at the end of the afternoon session.
Michelle Pittman is expected to make a return to the stand on Wednesday as a rebuttal witness. The use of Ms. Pittman a second time could be a risky move by the prosecution due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions in her prior testimony.
The morning session of court began with the testimony of Andrea Avila, Doug’s niece, who testified that she had taken pictures of many of Mr. Craig’s antiques that are in a storage container near the Porter’s home in La Grange. Vicki Porter had originally planed to take the pictures herself but her niece volunteered to do the job in an effort to help her aunt who had been through so much. Numerous photos were shown of the household antiques and farm implements. In one photo of an antique mirror Ms. Avila’s reflection could be seen as she took the photo leaving no room to doubt the authenticity of her testimony.
Next to testify was Monica Tanner, Doug Porter’s daughter. Ms. Tanner testified that she and her grandfather had moved Mr. Craig’s antiques from a storage facility in La Grange to the storage container near the Porter’s home in March of 2007. Ms. Tanner testified that after legal bills and expenses piled up the antiques were moved in an effort to spare the $140 per month being paid to the storage facility. Defense Attorney Kirk McAllister asked if Mr. Craig’s antiques had been moved before or after her father had been arrested, Ms. Tanner replied that the move took place several months after they had taken her Dad. When Ms. Tanner was asked about the items themselves, she recalled that they were mostly indoor antiques that Mr. Craig had kept with the intention of setting up a series of display rooms that would accurately reflect life during that time period.
After Ms. Tanner’s testimony the Defense rested.
The prosecution then called the Hickman Post Office postmaster from the 2001 to 2004 time frame. The postmaster testified that Mr. Craig’s name wasn’t on the box so he would not have had access to it, adding that at no time did Mr. Craig come in and ask for his mail or make a complaint of not receiving his mail.
The next rebuttal witness was accident re-constructionist Michael Varat. Varat’s testimony extended only far enough to list his credentials and begin to explain his examination procedures before the court broke for lunch. Mr. Varat’s testimony will continue after the noon break.
Only one witness was called during the afternoon session of court. The testimony of Pat Fisher, a board certified forensic document examiner, was heard. Ms. Fisher went through a long list of credentials to be qualified to the court as an expert witness. Fisher has been a handwriting expert and document examiner since the 1970’s when the forensic aspect of the field was just beginning to be defined. Fisher has also published several studies and serves as the editor of the Journal of Forensic Examiners and has identified forgeries and authenticated documents for many large corporations such as Chevron, Wells Fargo, and Cisco.
Ms. Fisher explained that she began her testing by studying a case overview, as well as numerous examples of Frank Craig’s handwriting and documents containing his know signature. Fisher then compared the examples to the signatures on documents shown to the court by the defense in which Mr. Craig explained he was aware and gave consent for Doug to make purchases and gifts with account funds as well as buy and sell equipment, vehicles and household furnishings. Fisher also examined documents signed by Mr. Craig documenting acknowledged loans from himself to Doug Porter and Aaron Porter.
Fisher determined that the signatures on all the documents were consistent with Mr. Craig’s known signatures and all documents were of common authorship. In laymen’s terms, all the documents shown by the defense were signed by Frank Craig. Of the four documents that Fisher authenticated, two were original documents, one was a copy provided by the defense and the other was a copy provided by the prosecution.
On cross-examination District Attorney John Mayne quibbled about the location on the document where Mr. Craig’s signature appeared. Though Mayne never plainly stated any allegation of fraud, he implied that the pages of Mr. Craig’s stationary had merely been signed while blank and left to be filled in with any manner of message at a later date.
The prosecution’s inference is not consistent with the testimony of numerous witnesses who knew Mr. Craig well and described him as a strongly self-willed man who knew exactly what he wanted. Mr. Craig’s trust attorney, Mahlon Ford, testified that he attempted to dissuade Mr. Craig for hours on his unorthodox wishes concerning details of his trust without success. All testimony provided directly contradicts the insinuation that Frank Craig was the type of person who would sign his name to blank paper without specific knowledge of what he was signing or to what he was agreeing.
Court was ended early in the afternoon. No testimony will be heard on Friday, and court will resume Monday morning.
Doug Porter’s testimony in his own defense came to an end before the noon break today. Assistant District Attorney John Mayne had announced that he had no further questions of Doug yesterday afternoon; however his opinion on the matter seems to have changed over the course of the evening in light of his request this morning to re-open his questioning.
Mayne’s request went un-objected by defense attorney Kirk McAllister, allowing Mayne to show Doug photos of a truck dashboard similar to the one involved in the 2002 accident. Doug responded that it did seem similar. Mayne’s follow-up questions focused on a key activated knob that would switch off the passengers side air-bag, asking specifics about whether or not any wording near the knob lit up when engaged. Doug testified as he had previously, that he seems to remember it lighting up, but he wasn’t absolutely certain. After that detail was cleared up Mayne was finally satisfied in his questioning and once again stated that he had no more questions.
On re-direct McAllister addresses questions raised by Mayne yesterday as to why Mr. Craig did not have his name on each account opened. Doug explained that Mr. Craig did not wish to have his name on the account out of a desire to remain an anonymous donor. This statement is supported by Mr. Craig’s own wording on a document previously shown to the court. When Mr. Craig originally donated funds to Hickman Church to start the museum foundation fund, he drafted a letter sent to the church stating an “anonymous donor” desired to gift money toward the project.
Another of Mayne’s claims that was refuted is the notion, perpetuated by the testimony of James Ten Napel, that Doug forbade all other Elders of church staff from having any communication with Mr. Craig, and that any correspondence must go through him. This “cloak and dagger” allegation was denied by Doug, who testified that he never told anyone they could not speak to Mr. Craig directly. McAllister strengthened this statement by pointing out that the testimony of several church elders heard in court included statements and recollections of conversations with Mr. Craig and visits to his home.
In response to the frequent allegations by Mayne that Doug had stolen clocks or antiques from among Mr. Craig’s belongings, and had taken them to his home in La Grange, McAllister referred to the video of the interior and exterior of Doug’s home shown by the prosecution yesterday. It was pointed out that no item or possession of Mr. Craig’s was seen in the home.
McAllister then asked Doug if, as a pastor, he was discriminate in the type of people he ministered to. Doug responded that he would minister to who ever needed help, whether they are a doctor, lawyer, young person, drug addict, or convict. This clarification was made in response to Mayne’s attempts to prove guilt by association when listing every legal infraction committed by any person known to have any relationship with Doug.
After these clarifications Mayne was allowed to re-direct as well. A few questions were asked regarding exact details of figures in accounts dating back six years. The only other point brought out by Mayne was that Hickman Church is opposed to divorce. Doug acknowledged it to be true, but added that the position was based on scripture, not personal opinions, adding that the church attempts to assist people in reconciliation through counseling as much as possible.
Doug Porter’s testimony in defense of the allegations made against him was concluded. The noon break began early, as the next witness was still in route to the court house. Testimony will resume at 1:30.
After the noon break District Attorney Mayne continued on with questions regarding inane details from years past, until finally deciding to drop all pretense of integrity by insinuating that Doug’s son Aaron Porter had been given cash from C.VM.A accounts to support a crack cocaine habit. This was a particularly cheap tactic due to the fact that any amount of inquiry into the issue would provide information that Doug’s son was not a drug user. Quite the opposite, he was a police officer in Alabama. During the Marti Gras celebration, Aaron had worked the night shift for over two weeks straight. Aaron had confiscated drugs from a bust on an abandoned house brought on by anonymous tip before ending his shift, and then returned home in exhaustion. The minute amount of confiscated drugs were thrown into a city provided trash dumpster. After an incident with another officer on the same shift resulted in a search of property, Aaron’s squad car was searched as well. No drugs were found in his system, on his person, in his home, or anywhere else besides the trash dumpster. Aaron Porter can only be accused of secondary possession and improper disposal.
In light of these facts it can only be assumed that Mayne is remiss in his case knowledge or has willfully set out to deceive the jury with insinuations so twisted it approaches the Duke/Nifong threshold.
Doug only responded that he had known some information about the incident, but that information was limited due to his family’s reluctance to discuss their personal lives on the recorded and monitored phone calls which have been their only means of communication for the last two years.
When the subject was finally dropped, Mayne then attempted to debate theology with Doug over the implications of the term “unequally yoked” that appeared in the minutes of an elder’s meeting in reference to Doug and Frank. Mayne cited the address of the verse in the Bible to which he believed this phrase was referencing. Doug responded, acknowledging that the term does appear in scripture in reference to relationships between Christians and non-Christians, but pointed out that the particular verse Mayne had cited was in a passage talking about marriage, and wouldn’t be an appropriate application.
As testimony wore on, several pictures were shown of Doug’s former home in La Grange. Mayne asked Doug repeatedly the sale amount of the home and what was done with the proceeds of the sale. Doug responded that he did not know the sale price or any sale details due to the fact that he had been held awaiting trial at the time of sale.
The next baseless allegation slung by John Mayne was that Doug’s ministry in Mexico was really just a condo on the beach somewhere. Doug responded that that was far from true. When Mayne asked if Doug owned any property in Mexico, the response was a flat ‘no”. Doug later explained that when he went to Mexico he stayed at his daughter Monica’s house. Monica and her husband Judah also worked in the Mexico ministry and lived there full time. When asked, Doug testified that his daughter didn’t own a condo either; she and her husband rented a home.
Mayne questioned Doug on various details for a few minutes longer before announcing he had no further questions of this witness.
In light of the fact that District Attorney Mayne has lowered himself to using inflammatory gossip, including gross misrepresentations of things and people unrelated to this case, it could be assumed that he has no substantial evidence or information on which to base his case.
Doug Porter continued testifying on his own behalf this morning. Questioning by defense attorney Kirk McAllister started off with an explanation of how C.V.M.A business continued after the Hickman Church Elders stepped down as official C.V.M.A. board members. Doug explained that the elder board encouraged Doug to continue on with the project on his own, which he did with occasional input from Hickman Church. Doug also explained that a large part of the reason he stepped down as head pastor of Hickman Church was due to unwanted media attention and slanderous articles written by the Modesto Bee. Doug also testified that part of his motivation for stepping down was to have a more full-time role in the Mexico ministry, with which he had long been involved.
In his testimony Doug explained that he continued to work toward building the museum even after Mr. Craig had passed away. There were numerous projects worked on after Mr. Craig’s death, including paving, installing sprinklers, drilling a well for the sprinklers, and fencing the property.
When asked by McAllister how Doug thought he had handled the finances, Doug admitted he was “in over his head” when it came to managing the finances of the project. Describing him and Mr. Craig’s prior financial experience, Doug added that neither he, nor Mr. Craig had ever previously balanced a checkbook. When asked how he would have rated his handling of C.V.M.A. finances, Doug testified that he thought he had done a terrible job, in retrospect he should have had much more documentation and had more agreements between Mr. Craig and himself down on paper.
Documents were shown to the court that had been typed up and signed by Mr. Craig saying Doug had permission to buy and sell machinery, tools, household furnishings, and vehicles. Another document typed and signed by Mr. Craig stated his consent of Doug withdrawing or distributing money from his accounts, also allowing Doug to make gifts and purchases with the funds.
A third document was shown from the pages of Mr. Craig’s legal trust agreement stating Doug had equal authority over trust accounts with Mr. Craig, and was allowed to move funds and make financial decisions. Doug testified that although he had legal authority to make financial decisions on his own, Doug insists he always talked everything over with Mr. Craig before a decision was made.
The last document shown by the defense was a letter typed and singed by Mr. Craig, Doug Porter, and all the Elders of Hickman church. The document spelled out the acknowledged loan from Frank Craig to Aaron Porter, for repairs needed on his home.
Doug testified that as he and Mr. Craig spent more and more time together on the project they continued to grow closer as friends. Doug recalled a touching gesture made by Mr. Craig in the winter of 2003, when Doug had stopped by Craig’s home to check on him. As the two friends talked, Frank asked Doug to get a harmonica box off of a shelf. When Doug brought Frank the box and had opened it he saw that it contained Mr. Craig’s WWII dog tags. Frank stated that he wanted Doug to have them. Doug testified that he was moved by the expression, but asked Frank if he was sure. Frank stated that none of his relatives would want them and he wanted Doug to have them.
When McAllister asked point blank if Doug Porter had ever tried to murder Mr. Craig, Doug immediately answered “no”, adding that he loved Frank and feels sorry and saddened that some of his actions contributed to hurting Frank.
McAllister followed up asking Doug why he had continued to work on the museum even after Mr. Craig had passed away. Emotion could be heard in Doug’s voice when he responded “I made a commitment to him”.
As cross-examination began district attorney John Mayne asked numerous detailed questions about exact account balances on specific dates and exactly what percentages of proceeds were deposited in accounts. Doug attempted to answer some of Mayne’s questions, but had to admit he did not recall exact numbers and details from so many years ago.
At one point Mayne asked Doug about some wording on a document he had signed in 2003. The document was not shown to the court, and Doug responded to Mayne that he had no recollection of such details, explaining that he has been locked in jail since 2006 and had not seen the document referred to in many years.
Mayne continued his questioning by recalling the names of any person with a criminal record who had ever had dealings with Doug, attempting to prove guilt by association. This point may not serve Mayne’s purpose due to the nature of a pastor’s job, to reach out to those persons who need help the most.
Cross-examination will continue after the noon break.
Continued from morning session
Defense attorney Kirk McAllister also discussed the subject of numerous trips Doug and Frank took together. Doug explained that as time went on he realized that companionship was just as important to Mr. Craig as the museum project was.
The two men traveled together for six weeks in Europe visiting various places Frank had been stationed during WWII. Doug also took Mr. Craig on several trips across the United States to visit old friends and army buddies as well as several dozen trips to agricultural museums all over the country.
Several pictures were shown of the two friends together at landmarks and on outings. As Doug explained the pictures, the depth of his relationship with Frank Craig became apparent.
Break for lunch.
As testimony resumed after the noon break Kirk McAllister asked Doug to describe Frank Craig. Doug responded that Mr. Craig had a complex personality; he enjoyed his hobbies and pursuits greatly, and could be very pleasant with like-minded people. In contrast, Doug added, Mr. Craig could, on occasion, say unkind things or behave irritably.
When the subject of Doug and Frank’s travels came up again, the focus was more on trips taken after the 2002 accident. Doug explained that the he and Mr. Craig still visited many museums and farm shows in California, and even traveled to Colorado together, by train, for kelation, which is a blood purification treatment. Doug testified that he took Mr. Craig to all his doctors’ appointments. Richard Peterson, Mr. Craig’s live-in care taker, also testified that Doug was the one who took Mr. Craig o all his appointments.
McAllister then turned to the subject of the “other accounts”-- C&P Investments, and Eastside Youth Fund. Doug explained that C&P was started as a safer investment alternative after hundreds of thousands of dollars had been lost when the tech stocks crashed. Doug explained that neither he nor Frank knew anything about the stock market and after heavy losses felt more comfortable investing in rental properties throughout the Hickman area.
Doug also explained that Eastside Youth Fund had been established as away to aid the youth and needy families in the area.
The prosecution has made accusations that money from the proceeds of a C&P investment house was used by Doug for personal use; however this accusation appeared ill-founded when a letter typed out and signed by Frank Craig was shown to the court granting his permission for Doug to use $80,000.00 from C&P. The letter detailed that the sum was to be considered a loan and would be repaid over time. Doug explained that he only ended up using $40,000.00 and had made payments until a large expense of Mr. Craig’s had come up that Doug had paid for out of his personal accounts which equaled the loan amount, and the two men agreed to call it even.
The second letter issued by Mr. Craig was shown to the court. This letter was written to Hickman Church in response to Cathy Bergman’s concerns that Doug had mis-spent $15,000 of foundation fund monies. The letter from Mr. Craig stated that he and Doug had prearranged the expenditures. Mr. Craig further added that Doug had his full authority to write checks out of his accounts.
By the end of 2001 Hickman Church expressed their desires to no longer be involved with the museum project. James Ten Napel had not succeeded in raising any funds and Doug had learned that the county planned to build a new, large Agricultural Center on Crows Landing Road with which Doug felt they could not compete. All these pressures left Doug feeling discouraged.
When the subject of the first accident came up, Doug explained that Mr. Craig had returned home from his time spent in Modest Rehabilitation Hospital in the winter months of 2002. Doug explained that Martin Escobar had already been living in a trailer outside Mr. Craig’s home for two years off and on, helping Mr. Craig after a hip replacement surgery in 2001, and agreed to remain there and help care for the ranch. Doug also hired two of his nieces to come alternately throughout the day to care for Mr. Craig. Brianne Szuggar came in the morning to prepare Mr. Craig for the day and dress him, then prepare his breakfast. April Hensley would come in the evening to check on Mr. Craig and prepare his dinner. Doug explained that he would go over each day to have lunch with Frank and bring a meal prepared by the women from the Hickman Church hospitality ministry.
McAllister then asked whether Mr. Craig had ever received a third degree sunburn from being left in the yard too long. Michelle Pittman testified early in the trial that two days after Mr. Craig had returned home from the rehabilitation hospital he had received a severe burn which prompted her supposedly to spend each and every evening at Mr. Craig’s home. No other witness has corroborated Pittman’s claims of constant care, Richard Peterson testified that she and her husband visited on weekends, and spoke frequently of their hopes to inherit Craig’s ranch.
Doug testified that there was no sunburn at all. The fact that Mr. Craig came home from the rehab in the winter months added credence to his claims as well as the fact that Mr. Craig’s yard is completely covered by shade trees and receives less than one hour of direct sunlight everyday.
Doug described life as it carried on for the next two years. Doug then explained the events of the 2004 accident in which Mr. Craig lost his life. Doug had arrived at Mr. Craig’s house at 2:30 PM to pick up his friend and take him to Turlock to check on some equipment in which Mr. Craig had been interested. On the way, they picked up the mail, and Mr. Craig wanted to go on the canal to get a look at a neighbor’s orchard that had been torn out. As they drove along the canal Mr. Craig began to open his mail and complain loudly about something he believed to be a six dollar federal rebate check. Doug took a look at the check, and explained to Mr. Craig that it was a DMV rebate. As he pointed out the DMV logo on the check to Mr. Craig, they hit two large rocks causing the truck to jerk. Doug then testified that he looked over his shoulder to see what they had hit and before he had turned back toward the roadway, the truck was in the canal.
Doug then described his struggle to save Frank as he pulled Mr. Craig from the deep, swift canal waters and performed CPR until rescue workers arrived.
When McAllister asked Doug about the comment he had made at a meeting about Frank “no longer being around”, Doug explained that the comment was not made the day before the accident. This was reinforced by the elder meeting minutes. Other elders have testified that the comments were made after discussion about Doug’s busy schedule. The topic of Doug’s schedule does not appear on the notes taken at the meeting the day before the accident. They do, however, appear on notes taken at a meeting two weeks earlier. Doug explained that as he was confronted by his fellow elders with concerns that he was over-committed, he asked rhetorically which of his commitments he should give up. Not his work as a coach, which enabled him to reach out to so many young people? Not his work with C.V.M.A., to which he was also committed? He then addressed the issue of his care of Mr. Craig. That was something that demanded a lot of his time, but rationally, given Mr. Craig’s age and health, would not go on forever. Doug pointed out to his friends that though they may not have liked his busy schedule, it could not be helped; each of his commitments was a necessary one.
Even after Mr. Craig’s death Doug continued to work towards bringing museum plans to fruition. Documents from a meeting Doug and his wife had with county planning officials, dated August of 2004, were shown to the court in support of this point. Doug, who was by this time no longer a pastor at Hickman Church, continued to work on the project until Hickman Church Elders forced a stop on all C.V.M.A. activity due to pressure from four lawsuits brought against the church by Henry “Bud” Whitney, coupled with a series of slanderous, inaccurate articles written by the Modesto Bee.
Doug Porter’s testimony will continue Wednesday morning at 10:00 am.
The court room was crowded today as Doug Porter took the stand in his own defense. After brief testimony from Dan Azevedo, the owner of Turlock House Movers, who testified that plans to move the Old Rowe School House were solidified in late 2003. This claim was proven by the contract written up by Mr. Azevedo dated 8-19-03.
As Doug took the stand he explained in his own words the history of his relationship with Mr. Craig as well as the evolution of C.V.M.A. plans. Defense attorney Kirk McAllister began by delving in to Doug’s background.
Doug had met Mr. Craig for the first time as a young man, still in elementary school. Mr. Craig had worked with Doug’s grandfather and eventually Doug would go to Mr. Craig’s ranch to work in the peach orchards.
As a young man Doug Porter was involved in many sports, however by the time he was a junior in high school he had become solely focused on wrestling. Eventually Doug went on to wrestle in college all the way up to Olympic trial qualifying meets. Many witnesses have testified that Mr. Craig was an avid sports fan, and the old friend followed Doug’s career.
Doug eventually moved back to the area and began coaching. He began at the college level, and later as his sons grew up, he coached their high school teams. Doug testified that during these years he and Mr. Craig had seen each other frequently at community functions and around town. Though the two remained friendly, it wasn’t until the summer of 1999 that Mr. Craig began to pursue a project partnership with Doug.
In 1999 Mr. Craig’s brother, James Craig, had passed away leaving Frank a large inheritance. With the inherited money Mr. Craig desired to build an agricultural museum and zeroed in on Doug Porter as the man for the job.
Doug testified that Mr. Craig started showing up at his Hickman home at least twice a month attempting to persuade the pastor to help him develop the project. Doug admitted that originally he had no interest in the project, but eventually agreed to get involved after he and Mr. Craig broadened plans be of greater benefit to the whole community, as well as an aid to local youth and the needy. Doug testified that he told Mr. Craig repeatedly that he had no experience with such a project, but Mr. Craig was not swayed, stating that he believed Doug could get the job done.
After agreeing to get on board, Doug sought advice from friends with experience in development projects and relied on their advice and contacts to guide him. Doug explained that in the beginning museum plans progressed well, however the project hit a snag when county planners clearly spelled out that a museum would not be approved on the agriculturally zoned land. At this point plans were amended, leaving all the building plans exactly the same, but adjusting the labels on the structures themselves. At the suggestion of county officials, the museum building would now be labeled “Exhibit Hall” and the Community Center would be labeled “Multi-purpose Hall.” By tying the whole project to the church, who had already planned to use the community center on Sunday morning, they hoped to be able to make use of a zoning exemption that applies to churches.
Things continued to progress until it became clear that the cost of the plans would exceed the existing budget. Some cuts were made in the building plans in an effort to scale back, along with other attempts made to keep the project going as scheduled. One such attempt was the hiring of James Ten Napel, a former sports writer for the Modesto Bee whom Doug had known through his coaching career. Ten Napel had boasted that he would be perfect for the fund raising position, claiming he had a lifelong close friendship with the Foster family of Foster Farms and was sure they would donate towards the project as well as help him in encouraging other agriculture related businesses in the area to do the same. It has been proven in court already that Mr. Ten Napel frequently misrepresented the truth and this seems to be yet another example of that habit. Ten Napel himself testified in court that he never raised a dime toward museum funds from the Fosters or anyone else.
When McAllister asked Doug to explain the difference and relation between C.V.M.A. accounts run by the church and those in Mr. Craig’s control, Doug explained that the church had complete control over a fund known as the foundation fund, and for a time an A.G. Edwards brokerage account. Mr. Craig would deposit sums of money in these accounts at various times for upcoming museum expenses. Mr. Craig retained the bulk of his funds in his own trust account.
Doug spoke openly about money from the foundation fund that he had loaned to his son, Aaron Porter, for some costs on a home he had purchased. Doug testified that he asked Frank’s permission to make the loan, and Frank, who was fond of Aaron, agreed. Also discussed were some expenditures for Frank Craig’s direct expenses, and some credit card reimbursements to Doug for expenses he had covered for Frank.
This and other expenditures caused a problem for Cathy Bergman who felt this was not in accordance with H.C.C. Policy. The church policy had been that the money donated by Frank would only be used for H.C.C. improvements and museum expenses. This issue, raised by Bergman, annoyed Frank, who was aware of the expenditures, causing him to sever his personal accounts from Hickman Community Church.
The remaining morning testimony will be included with the afternoon update. Court resumed after the noon recess with Doug still on the stand
The afternoon session of court resulted in the long delayed ending to Assistant District Attorney John Mayne’s cross-examination of Gerald Deller. On re-direct defense attorney Kirk McAlister allowed Deller to more fully explain the accounting procedures that had been misrepresented by Mayne as he struggled to comprehend the mechanics of accounting in higher finance, trying to reduce it to an oversimplified subtraction problem.
As to mistakes that Doug may have made in trying to identify various expenditures, McAllister pointed out that Deller used this information only as a starting point, always supporting assertions with bank records or invoices. McAllister further pointed out that it would be understandable if Doug’s memory of events wasn’t clear on every transaction considering the long lapse of time between the events of the case and the actual trial. In addition, the fact that he has been held in jail for nearly two years awaiting trial and provided all information from memory as he had no access to his records, documents, or receipts.
Gary Porter testified for a second time, clearing up a misunderstanding from his previous testimony. Two weeks ago Gary testified that some time after Mr. Craig had given his son Jeff an old fixer-upper truck, Gary had taken the pink slip to Mr. Craig to be signed. Gary testified that at the time Mr. Craig was convalescing in Modesto Rehabilitation hospital. Today Gary took the stand to clear up that the truck had been given to his son before the 2002 accident, as was proven by the date the pink slip was signed. Gary explained that Mr. Craig was in the rehab hospital recovering from a knee replacement surgery that he had recently had. Other witnesses have mentioned the surgery in testimony and the validity of this claim went unchallenged by the prosecution.
Gary further explained that the old truck sat in his driveway for over a year before Doug and his son Kyle came over to pick it up and drive it to the Craig ranch at Mr. Craig’s request. During that year, Gary testified, Mr. Craig had come over to his home to visit and saw the truck in the driveway, even inquiring about it. Gary recalled that when he visited, he was using a walker, having healed somewhat from the knee replacement.
This is an important clarification due to the fact that Gary’s son, Jeff Porter, also testified that Mr. Craig had used a walker or crutches during the visit. This was wrongly assumed by district attorneys and local media to be proof that Jeff’s story was false.
The last witness of the day was District Attorney Investigator Mike Hermosa. Hermosa was called by the defense to give an account for his questionable methods of investigation. Hermosa was questioned about his habit of only tape recording the testimony of witnesses who were not in agreement with prosecution efforts. It seems the interviews with more enthusiastic witnesses were not recorded, so that if their stories varied or grew more exaggerated, no one would be the wiser. Hermosa denied the claim. However, when McAllister cited the example of Richard Peterson’s interview, Hermosa’s credibility crumbled.
Mike Hermosa, along with District Attorney John Baker, had flown all night, then drove for six straight hours to have an impromptu, late night interview in a Wisconsin hotel with Richard Peterson the night before he was scheduled to give a sworn statement in the civil case being brought against Doug by Henry “Bud” Whitney. Mr. Whitney is engaged in a blanket law suit against eight members of the Porter family, Hickman Community Church, the Elders of the church, and insurance companies, in order to profit in any way possible from his wife’s uncle’s estate.
Hermosa admitted that before the Wisconsin interview he had spoken with Peterson several times on the phone. Each time Peterson was cooperative and supplied all information asked of him. Hermosa was unable to give a reason why the trip was necessary in light of Peterson’s cooperation. Even more astounding was that after such a long, exhaustive trip, that could only be warranted if Peterson had vital information, Hermosa neglected to record the interview, though he admits he did have his recorder with him at the time.
When McAllister asked Hermosa if it was true that the two men had gone simply to make sure Peterson said the right things in his deposition the next morning, Hermosa denied it, claiming the purpose he had gone on the trip with Assistnat District Attorney John Baker was simply to help drive. This response surprised Mr. McAllister, who then asked if Mr. Baker was capable to drive himself.
Hermosa was then excused, court will resume on Monday morning.
The morning session of court began with the continued cross-examination of CPA, Gerald Deller. The tedious line of questioning by district attorney John Mayne has been reminiscent of a political filibuster, attempting simply to use up as much time as possible without actually having anything substantial to say.
Mayne’s questions have centered around small questions raised on a document retrieved out of the boxes of data he has received from Deller. One point that Mayne lingered long on was that Doug had made an error in some notes written to Deller concerning what funds were dispersed to various accounts as result of a transaction made over six years ago. Mayne proclaimed loudly that this was proof that Doug Porter is a liar, however Deller explained that in all the information Doug was asked to remember, it is understandable that he could have been confused or mistaken on a few points. Deller further explained that he had already concluded that Doug was mistaken on this particular point by examining bank records and tax information and that his findings reflected that.
Next Mayne focused on $7,000.00 in checks written to Joe Dias for the clean-up of Mr. Craig’s property in preparation of sale. Mayne asked Deller if he was aware that Joe’s wife, Agnes Dias, had testified that the money was for work Joe had done at the Porter’s La Grange home rather than at the Craig ranch, and asked Deller if that fact would affect his conclusions. This, however, was a blatant misrepresentation of Ms. Dias’s testimony in which she stated that she did not recall what the six year old deposit was in reference to, explaining that her husband had worked at both locations. Ms. Dias testified her Husband might remember which job the check was intended for, she did not.
The last forty five minuets of court were taken up with Dozens of technical questions and details concerning dates Deller completed various documents and which of Dan Ray’s documents he had reviewed.
Deller’s cross-examination is expected to end this afternoon, possibly with enough time remaining to call one more witness for the defense
The afternoon session of court began the first testimony of the day as the jury was finally ushered in to the courtroom to hear the cross-examination of Gerald Deller. The prosecution questioned Mr. Deller primarily using information they had gleaned in reviewing boxes of Deller’s documents and notes.
Assistant District Attorney John Mayne seemed clueless as to how to approach Deller in cross-examination on Monday; however the sheer amount of work product he received enabled him to find at least a few points to aid in casting doubt or confusion about how the numbers added up. Mayne received additional help in the form of notes that were passed to him by prosecution witness Dan Ray, who was sitting in the gallery feeding the prosecution questions.
As testimony continued it appeared that Mayne became a little confused himself as he tried repeatedly to use simple subtraction with randomly selected sums and pronounce totals that supported his case. Deller explained to Mayne that such simplistic approaches were inaccurate when dealing with multiple entities under the umbrella of one corporation.
By the end of a wearisome afternoon Mayne continued to pick away at any detail that could be misconstrued. Deller’s answers were strictly restricted to yes or no. Adding to the confusion was the fact that Mr. Deller was not allowed the opportunity to provide the background information needed to clarify most of the issues. When Deller would ask if he could provide further explanation, Mayne’s answer each time was a emphatic “NO”.
The cross-examination of Gerald Deller will continue on Friday morning.
The morning session of court was largely comprised of in-chambers conversation and testimony concerning the admittance of prosecutor confiscated documents and their admissibility. The jury was kept out of the court room during the legal wrangling, finally being excused until 1:45 pm.
After the noon break CPA, Gerald Deller, is expected to be cross-examined. Deller was excused earlier in the morning to retrieve any and all notes he had taken in interviews with persons able to shed light on the nature and purpose of many C.V.M.A. expenditures.
After returning to the court house with the requested additional information he had used in his analysis, Deller gave “in camera” testimony in Judge Zeff’s private chambers.
The continued testimony of Gerald Deller elaborated on money Doug Porter had personally contributed to the C.V.M.A. project. When funds supplied by Mr. Craig ran short due to museum costs, Doug took out a line of credit against his own home and supplied over $100,000.00 of his own money to keep the museum plans alive.
An example of this was given as four checks from Doug’s personal accounts were shown to have paid the entire amount due to Cornish Paving for work done on museum grounds.
After all expenditures were broken down it was shown that over a six year span of time only $167,000.00 went to Doug Porter’s benefit. Such a sum, when divided over the six year period, certainly falls in to the category described by trust attorney, Mahlon Ford, as a reasonable salary due to trustees.
Cross examination of Mr. Deller began with questions focused on the financial discovery, the dates on which it was turned over to the prosecution and the contents of the binder Mr. Deller was referencing throughout his testimony. After a very short session of cross examination, it was announced to the court that Mayne was ill and felt too unwell to finish the court day. The jury was then dismissed and the subject of the financial discovery was again brought up. Judge Zeff, in response to Mayne’s ongoing complaints, made a ruling allowing the prosecution to make copies of the contents of Mr. Deller’s binder including all of Deller’s personal notes contained within the binder.
The financial expert for the defense, Gerald Deller, testified this morning. Deller began by explaining that he and the prosecution’s financial expert, Dan Ray, took very different approaches to unraveling the money trail of Frank Craig’s trust accounts. Ray had made cold calculations, assigning each bank expenditure to a category of his own choosing based solely on account statements and the scant information provided by the district attorneys office. Deller contrasted this approach by first endeavoring to understand the facts of the case and intentions of the organizations formed by Doug Porter and Frank Craig before deciding on the validity and category of each expenditure.
Key information Deller brought to light was the fact that C.V.M.A. was not the only organization with which Doug and Mr. Craig were involved. The two men were also involved with C& P Investments, an organization through which they bought and sold rental and investment properties. The third organization was Eastside Youth Fund, an organization dedicated to the furtherance and betterment of student athletes in the community. Both C&P Investments and Eastside Youth Fund originated through the joint efforts of Mr. Craig and Doug, however all funds in these organizations were assigned by Dan Ray as money that personally benefited Doug Porter.
Deller went on to clear up the past inaccuracy of Ray’s testimony. A graph used by Ray showing steep declines in account totals was explained. Drastic dips in the accounts represented the dates Doug and Mr. Craig purchased property and assets for the museum project, the fact that this information was not previously given to the jury casts a hue of misrepresentation over Ray’s whole testimony.
Information supplied by Deller explained that approximately $ 443,000.00 dollars was lost in the stock market after the tech crash, as well as the fact that nearly all expenditures made in C.V.M.A. accounts were made during a period in which the accounts were being managed by Hickman Church Elders with Cathy Bergman as the sole signer on the accounts. By the time Hickman Church gave control of the accounts back to Doug and Mr. Craig in December of 2001 approximately $25,000.00 was all that remained in cash and securities.
Mr. Deller used many charts, graphs, and lists documenting not only where all the money went, but also where all the money came from. It was surprising to learn that the third largest source of funds for C.V.M.A. accounts was from Doug Porter himself. This information was in stark contrast to charges against the pastor and community leader.
Letters detailing Mr. Craig’s intentions for the money he donated to the church provide much more depth than the one dimensional description of the district attorney, who in his opening statements described Mr. Craig as nothing more than a man who wanted to build a museum. The letters drafted by Craig state his desire to enrich the families and children in his community. Deller read from a letter written to the church informing them of the initial $175,000 gift that was given which stated that it’s purpose was for the education and enjoyment of the local community.
Before the court broke for lunch Deller explained that in all his thirty years of accounting this case has been by far the most difficult audit he has ever undertaken. These feelings were explained by a list of unsophisticated and often chaotic accounting habits practiced by Doug Porter. Though, Deller explained, such financial management is irresponsible and perhaps unwise, it is by no means criminal or malicious.
Deller’s testimony will continue after the noon break
The cross-examination of accident reconstructionist Toby Gloekler took up the entire afternoon but got nowhere. Gloekler’s testimony began this morning, spelling out every detail of the 2004 accident involving Doug and Mr. Craig. Assistant district attorney John Mayne tried repeatedly to trip the expert up by asking a series of off-the wall hypotheticals. At one point Mayne even asked Gloekler to calculate a trajectory based on an accident model constructed by Mayne using ink pens and envelopes, Gloekler responded that such a comparison was completely dissimilar to the facts of the accident.
Gloekler explained that due to law enforcements failure to document numerous details and the poor quality of crime scene photos some key pieces of information would be forever unknown.
Gloekler also made clear that it was not the rocks themselves that caused the accident. The truck had reached “critical speed” as it barreled around the turn. The dirt surface of the canal bank combined with the fraction of a second the tires left the roadway as they struck the rocks culminated in sending the pickup into a sideways slide and into the water. Gloekler explained that as the vehicle drifted to the left into the water the nose of the vehicle was actually pointing towards the right.
Numerous photos were shown by Mayne, along with a barrage of aggressive and occasionally confused questions. Unfortunately for Mr. Mayne, the longer Gloekler remained on the stand the more the prosecution’s case unraveled. As Mayne became more frustrated in his efforts, his gesturing grew more and more exaggerated.
No other witnesses were called due to the length of the prosecution’s cross-examination. Judge Zeff announced to the court room that due to scheduling conflicts their will be no testimony tomorrow. Court will resume Monday morning at 10:00 am. The defense expects to rest by July 25th and jury deliberation could start as soon as July 28th.
The morning’s testimony went overwhelmingly in favor of the defense as witness after witness poked holes in the prosecution’s already flimsy case. First to testify was Detective Mark Copeland who stated that in the original interview he had with James Ten Napel the day after the 2004 accident, Ten Napel testified that he had seen Doug driving on the canal bank the two days prior. In the original interview Ten Napel declared the rate of speed to have been 40-50 miles an hour, however by the time his testimony was given in court Doug’s driving speed had been adjusted downward in Ten Napel’s recollection in agreement with the speed suggested in the district attorney’s case.
Other court testimony that morphed through the years was that of Mr. Vasquez, the young man Doug sought help from at the accident scene. In Copeland’s original statements taken from Vasquez the day after the accident, Vasquez told detective Copeland that he had seen the rocks on the canal bank at 5:00 am that morning. Like Ten Napel, Vasquez’s testimony had changed with the passage of time to fit the district attorney’s version of events. Vasquez testified that he had never observed any rocks on the canal bank.
On a related note, Detective Copeland showed a series of ten photos showing large rocks strewn up and down the canal bank. One picture actually shows a recently plowed levy running parallel to the bank with large rocks protruding from all the freshly tilled earth. This sharply contrasts prosecution claims that the only other rocks on the roadway was a small cluster a half mile away.
In reference to the interviews Copeland had reviewed of Ten Napel and Vasquez, Copeland stated that he makes it a policy to tape record all such interviews for the sake of accuracy. Copeland explained that often in an investigation, details that may seem insignificant at first can be vital later on. This is an important point in light of District Attorney Investigator Mike Hermosa’s admission that he had not recorded many of his interviews, and his reports had been written based on his recollections and impressions of the conversation.
Next to testify was Bill York, a tax accountant and Hickman Church elder. York had been James Ten Napels accountant while he lived in California, and recalled a conversation in which TenNapel explained that he intended to sign a document prepared by his lender stating that $30,000.00 loaned to him by C.V.M.A. was a gift. Ten Napel acknowledged to York from the beginning that the money was, in fact a loan, not a gift; but further explained that his bank would not lend him the money for the house he was purchasing if he had the additional debt.
York advised Ten Napel that his misrepresentation to his lender was tantamount to fraud. Ten Napel, however, would not be dissuaded. Eventually York persuaded Ten Napel to at least draft a second document stating his intent to repay the loan; which Ten Napel promised he would do. York further testified that years later, when Ten Napel was preparing to move out of state, York confronted him with the fact that he had not repaid the loan and had announced his intentions never to do so. Ten Napel remained unwilling to settle the debt.
On cross-examination district attorney Mayne focused his questioning on coaxing York to say Doug had been fraudulent in the signing of the letter as well. Mayne re-asked the same question over and over, becoming so flustered that he began waving his limbs wildly and yelling out his questions in a slow, halting fashion. York explained that though Doug had not told the truth about the money being a gift, it was materially different in terms of accounting than Ten Napel misrepresenting his debt to income ratio to his lender.
York’s testimony also cast doubt on the story told by Cathy Bergman, stating that she was suddenly fired by Aaron Porter from her job at Hickman Church with no reason given. York recalled hearing of problems in the church being caused by Cathy Bergman. York brought the issues to Aaron Porter’s attention, resulting in Ms. Bergman’s willful resignation approximately one week later.
Last to testify before the noon break was collision re-construction engineer, Toby Gloekler. Mr. Gloekler is a former police investigator who later graduated from UC Berkley with a degree in civil engineering, and now owns his own re-construction firm. Gloekler’s firm instructs and advises law enforcement and insurance investigators as well as the California Highway Patrol in how to accurately determine the cause of collisions.
In this case Gloekler explained that his analysis was based off law enforcement’s photos and reports at the scene, as well as numerous tests and calculations he had done at the canal bank.
Gloekler showed the picture taken by officer Crooker of the four separate tire tracks on the lip of the canal bank where the truck entered the water. Gloekler explained that this photo is significant because if the truck had been driven straight into the canal, as the prosecution claims, only two tracks would be present. Four separate tracks show the truck to be sliding sideways on the dirt surface at the time it entered the water.
Gloekler explained that by calculating many precise measurements that he had taken at the accident scene in conjuction with those taken by local officers, combined with the position where the vehicle came to rest in the water, Doug’s speed upon leaving the canal bank surface would have been 52 mph. The same speed originally stated originally, but later changed by Ten Napel.
The final point made before the noon break was that photos of the pickup taken after it had been extracted from the canal show the tires to be in a position which would steer the truck to the right, away from the canal. This agrees with calculations that the truck was sliding sideways at the point of entry.
Testimony was then interrupted for noon break.
The afternoon session continued with the testimony of Stacy Carlson. Documents were presented to the court which Carlson explained to be documents generated by the county after the museum project was approved. The documents contained a list of thirty-seven restrictions and conditions on the project necessary for final approval. Upon reading the restriction list, Carlson testified to feeling deflated. “I felt like a little leaguer playing in the majors” Carlson said as she explained the nature of many burdensome restrictions that would break the project budget.
The restrictions caused a major set back, but Carlson explained that no time was wasted and the group immediately began brainstorming about ways to overcome their obstacles. It was Carlson who then suggested approaching agriculturally oriented businesses in the area to be commercial sponsors. Eventually James Ten Napel was hired for that very purpose.
Carlson testified that the project outlook was bleak; however she described Doug as the ultimate optimist, constantly saying “Stacy, you can do this.” Carlson phased out of direct involvement in July of 2000, but explained that she continued to consult on the project and stayed up to date on all progress. In October of 2002 she became re-involved with the project at which point less than $500,000.00 dollars were left in the C.V.M.A. fund.
Assistant district attorney John Mayne jumped on the $500,000 dollar figure, implying it to be due to embezzlement and scandal. Unfortunately for Mr. Mayne, Carlson was able to recall a long and specific list of museum costs that when deducted from the original sum of $1.3 million came to about $500,000.
As time went by the budget shortfall combined with numerous county restrictions, and small town gossips stirring the pot, Ms. Carlson testified that it was clear to her that there was no way to complete the project. Carlson testified, “at that point I knew we couldn’t do this”. When defense attorney Kirk McAllister asked Carlson who it was that put the breaks on the project, she responded “I did”.
Next to testify was Hickman School art teacher, Sue Petersen. Peterson, a co-worker of Vicki Porter, testified that Vicki Porter approached her in 2003 about painting an artists rendering of the old Rowe School House as it would look when moved on to the museum site. The two women then drove to the Foster Farms property where the house sits as well as the museum building site. The original painting which Vicki Porter still possessed was shown to the court and Ms. Petersen was excused.
Though Petersen’s testimony was short, it was also important as further evidence against prosecution claims that plans to move the historic building were never really discussed.
Cory Borges was called as the next defense witness. Borges testified to a long standing relationship with Doug, explaining Doug had been his coach and pastor since he was in the third grade. Borges recalled that in 2002 he and another wrestler on his team were hired to move antiques into side bedrooms at the Craig ranch in an effort to make the home more easily accessible to the convalescing Mr. Craig.
When cross-examined by the prosecution, Borges was assailed with copies of two checks written to him out of an East-side youth fund. This fund was set up by Doug and Mr. Craig, who shared an interest in sports and furthering the success of young athletes in the community. Borges explained that the checks were to help pay travel expenses incurred when he wrestled in the high school national tournament.
The goal of the Eastside youth fund is embodied by Cory Borges’s story. In today's proceedings, even assistant district attorney Mayne congratulated him on his recently won national college wrestling title. Borges now attends Montana State Northern on a wrestling scholarship.
The last witness to testify for the day was Dave Skidmore, who did engineering work for C.V.M.A. Skidmore surveyed the land, attended to plans for run off water and drainage, and attended project meetings with county officials.
It was in one such meeting that Skidmore recalls county planners flatly informing Doug that the project would never be approved for the construction of a museum, and recalls county officials then coached Doug to re-term the project if he hoped to proceed.
Skidmore then announced that as he reviewed files on this project in preparation for testimony, he happened upon blue prints concerning later phases of museum plans stored on the company computer system. Upon seeing said blue prints assistant district attorney John Mayne began a flustered string of objections. Judge Zeff then excused the jury for the remaining ten minutes of scheduled court to hear Mayne’s reasons why he hoped to conceal the additional museum plans from the jury. Skidmore was excused for the day, with the possibility of being recalled at a later date depending on his ability to authenticate the later phase blue prints.
Defense witness Bill York, a current Hickman Church Elder and accountant is expected to start tomorrow’s court proceedings.
This morning’s testimony began with Architect, Ernie Yoshino. Mr. Yoshino was contacted by Doug in 1999 to draw up the conceptual plans. The two men discussed the project and Mr. Yoshino understood from the first conversation that a donor had come forward wanting to finance an agricultural museum with an approximate budget of one million dollars. Mr. Yoshino further testified that the donor had a desire to display the antique farm equipment as well as provide a community center to enrich the small town and its people.
An interesting revelation in Mr. Yoshino’s plans was that no actual “church” building was included in the plans at all. The Prosecution has claimed that Doug’s only interest in the project was to get a church built, however Mr. Yoshino explained that the church would only be using a community center building to meet in on Sunday morning due to over crowding in their current facility.
The project shown in Mr. Yoshino’s drawings showed a large museum exhibit hall, attached by a foyer to a large community center hall equipped with an event kitchen for use during museum and community functions. The Community center was made large enough to double as an indoor basketball court. To illustrate the point that the community center was not in any way intended to be exclusive to the church, Mr. Yoshino pointed out that Doug and the church Elders had declined the architect’s original suggestion of installing pews, instead opting to use folding chairs in an effort to keep the space as “multi-use” as possible.
Mr. Yoshino testified that he met several times with Doug as the two worked closely in the designing of the project, and described Doug as being genuinely excited about building something that would benefit the community. Besides the museum/multipurpose facility, plans also included a baseball field, park, amphitheater, and outdoor walking exhibits of antique tractors and farm equipment.
When the total projected cost of the final project was discussed Mr. Yoshino estimated $2.2 million would be needed to complete the project. Due to the one million dollar difference in cost and actual budget, Mr. Yoshino testified that discussion took place about scaling down the project, but ultimately it was decided that Hickman Church would attempt to cover the shortfall.
A key point was brought out in Mr. Yoshino’s testimony when he explained that the museum building sight was zoned agricultural and therefore would not get county approval for the construction of a museum, however churches are exempt from such laws. The congregation had planned to meet in the community center on Sunday mornings only, but by officially stating this use on a portion of the plans C.V.M.A. could progress without a fight to get the acreage re-zoned.
Next to testify was Stacy Carlson, a real estate broker who worked on the museum project at length. Ms. Carlson originally declined to be involved with the project when Doug Porter first approached her in 1999 due to an already full schedule, however after some persistence on Doug’s part, she finally agreed on the condition that she be allowed to meet with Mr. Craig first to “see if he was for real” and ascertain the scope and reality of the project. The meeting was arranged and Ms. Carlson recalls Doug bringing Mr. Craig to meet with her at her ranch in the Hickman area. Ms. Carlson testified that she spoke at length with Mr. Craig about his specific wishes and plans for the project. “He said he wanted a place where a school bus full of children could come and spend the whole day” Carlson recalled, adding that Mr. Craig had intended the museum to have a park-like atmosphere in a family setting. Many details supplied by Ms. Carlson’s recollections echoed those described previously by Mr. Yoshino.
After Ms. Carlson heard Mr. Craig’s plans she urged him to consider building somewhere other than Hickman, due to limited sights in the small town that could accommodate such a facility. Carlson testified that Mr. Craig was adamant about the museum being built in Hickman. Carlson testified that being an area resident she knew the local properties well, and suggested two that she thought might work. The first property pursued is known to Hickman locals as the “Honda Hills” and is owned by Modesto area developer Wendell Naraghi. Unfortunately, Carlson testified, the property was zoned residential and therefore commanded a price well out of the C.V.M.A. price range. The second property was an acreage directly behind Hickman Church. The property was owned by the Burris family, who had farmed the land for many years. When the Burris family agreed to sell, it was on the condition that one and a half acres be split off for him on the North side of the property where his Farm House sits enabling the family to remain in their home.
A deal between the C.V.M.A. and the Burris family was agreed upon including a paragraph written in to the selling contract promising the land would be used for the previously stated purpose of building a museum, park, and community center. Several property layouts were done until one was agreed upon between buyer and seller. Carlson testified that most meetings and decisions were attended to by Doug but Mr. Craig had final authority on all decisions.
Ms. Carlson testimony continues after noon break.
Afternoon testimony began with defense witness Dave Piazza. Mr. Piazza’s testimony dispelled the prosecution claims that Doug was not truly interested in seeing the museum built. Mr. Piazza testified that even after Doug had stepped down as the pastor of Hickman Church he continued in his efforts to see his friend’s dream realized. Doug pursued various alternate plans in an attempt to find some way around the numerous county restrictions on the on the project. Finally, Piazza testified, the toll of slanderous media attention combined with multiple law suits from the Whitney family prompted the church Elders to tell Doug they were no longer willing to pursue the project and would not consider allowing him to move the Rowe School House onto museum grounds.
The Whitneys claim they filed law suits against Doug Porter, all of his children, Hickman Church, each individual Elder, and the insurance companies out of a feeling of injustice for their distant relative. Ironically, it was the Whitney’s lawsuits that put a final end to Mr. Craig’s dream.
Piazza confirmed defense claims that several hundred thousand dollars in C.V.M.A. funds were lost in the stock market when the tech bubble burst. The prosecution had previously factored these lost funds into the sum total they claim Doug used for his own gain. Mr. Piazza was able to speak with direct knowledge on the issue as he testified that he was the contact person for the A.G. Edwards investment and ultimately made the final decision to cut their losses and sell off the tanked stocks.
Next to testify was Jerry Morgan, a current Hickman Church Elder and long time friend of both Doug Porter and Frank Craig. Mr. Morgan’s testimony began with the April 21, 2004 Elders meeting previously testified to by Brian Henson. Mr. Morgan’s recollections are far less sensational than Henson’s and seemed much more credible. Morgan explained that the mood of the meeting had become tense when two Elders sternly admonished Doug for spending too much time with Mr. Craig and on the museum project as opposed to time spent at the church. Morgan recalls Doug replied in a tongue in cheek tone that things might be easier if Frank weren’t around anymore. Morgan described the statement as an attempt to alleviate tension. This attempt may have worked, a few of the men chuckled and the topic of conversation changed. Morgan testified that the exchange had none of the sinister overtones hinted at by Henson, stating that the comment was flippant and may have been in bad taste, adding that everyone says things from time to time that don’t come out right. Previous witnesses that know Doug well have also testified that he frequently made off-the-wall statements.
As the prosecution attempted to cross-examine Mr. Morgan, evidence to support the defense kept getting in their way. The district attorneys have been attempting to discredit defense witnesses by asking questions about insignificant details of events from ten years ago. When this strategy was attempted with Mr. Morgan it backfired. Prosecutors flashed copies of invoices from Waterford Farm Supply up for the court to see and grilled Mr. Morgan on the use of each small item listed. Morgan was able to recall the exact use of many items listed and prove that they were legitimate C.V.M.A. expenditures. Barbed wire was used to keep out the cars that had been entering the property off the canal bank. Cement had been used to secure fence posts for the baseball diamond. Oil had been used to service the tractor a parishioner had lent to work on the project. A few small items could not be recalled, due to the passage of so many years.
Prosecutors then asked when was the last time Mr. Morgan saw Mr. Craig before he passed away. The prosecution has claimed that Doug had not visited Mr. Craig for months before the day of the 2004 accident, and were visibly flustered when Morgan confidently recalled seeing Doug and Frank together approximately one week before the accident. Assistant district attorney John Baker then implied that Morgan didn’t know Craig very well and probably could not be sure if that was who he saw. Morgan then explained that he had known Craig since he was six years old, adding that his family used to rent a house on Craig’s land. Morgan also testified that he had seen Mr. Craig frequently in recent years when he and Doug would stop by the church on their way to town. Mr. Morgan was then excused.
Court will resume Wednesday morning at 10:00 AM.
The testimony of Jeff Porter continued this morning. Jeff worked on Mr. Craig’s ranch helping the elderly man tend his garden and order his equipment in various barns around the yard. Most of the remaining questions asked of Jeff were regarding a broken down 1950’s model Ford Pickup Mr. Craig had given the young man. Jeff testified that Mr. Craig had given the truck to him one day when they were working together in the barn where the truck was stored. It was explained that Jeff’s father, Gary Porter, had handled the details of transferring ownership of the truck for his son who was in high school at the time.
Jeff went on to testify that a few months later the truck was returned to Mr. Craig, who had changed his mind about the gift. Jeff testified that this did not cause any change in their friendship. It was implied that this seemingly curious reversal was not unusual to Mr. Craig. Jeff stated that he himself did not mind returning the truck since he lacked the funds to complete all the necessary repairs.
Cross-examination by assistant district attorney John Baker was interrupted by the Judge, and Baker was admonished to let Jeff Porter answer the questions without being cut off. Baker seemed very frustrated and even angry when cross-examining the relaxed young man, not even letting one word answers be uttered before interrupting.
Baker tried repeatedly to re-categorize Jeff’s duties at the Craig ranch. Three times in Jeff’s testimony Baker claimed that Jeff worked solely in the pasture that had been rented out to Joe Dias. Each time, Jeff corrected the mistake and clarified that he did not say that he worked on Frank’s pasture regularly, and that the bulk of his work was done in Mr. Craig’s garden or in the equipment yard.
The next witness was Pam Villarreal, who was a field representative for Stanislaus County Supervisor Tom Mayfeild from 1993 to 2007. Among her many duties as field representative was that she arranged Mr. Mayfield’s schedule and meetings.
Hickman Church Elder meeting minutes previously shown in court held a detailed account given by James TenNapel to the Board of Elders detailing his meetings with Mr. Mayfeild as well as conversations he had with Mr. Mayfield’s assistant Pat Sweeny regarding the C.V.M.A. project. Ten Napel testified to such conversations and meetings under oath last week.
The testimony of Ms. Villarreal further solidified that Mr. Ten Napel’s entire testimony was a pergerous lie when she testified that she had reviewed all schedules and records. Ten Napel had never called in or scheduled any meetings with Mr. Mayfield’s office. Ms. Villarreal further testified that Pat Sweeny was Director of Human Resources and would not have been in any way involved with the museum project. Records did show, however, that Doug and Vicki Porter did schedule appointments concerning museum progress with the Supervisor.
Next to testify was Doug’s daughter-in-law Holly Porter. Ms. Porter began her testimony by recalling her reaction when she received the call that Doug and Frank had been in an accident and Mr. Craig’s air bag had failed to deploy. The soft spoken mother of five recalled telling family members, “Oh no, it’s my fault.” Ms. Porter had turned the air bag to the off position days earlier when her four-year-old daughter had ridden with Doug to go on a special fishing trip. Ms. Porter explained that she had taken two county offered classes on car seat installation and child safety, and knew that air bags could cause fatalities in children under seven. Ms. Porter explained that it was not her practice to let her children ride in the front seat at all, but made an exception on the special occasion.
On cross-examination, District Attorney John Mayne attempted to attack Ms. Porter’s parenting skills, claiming that Ms. Porter was ambivalent about her daughter being maimed or killed because her safety seat was installed in the front seat instead of the back.
The main thrust of the cross-examination was in the snide comments made by the prosecutors about Doug’s “generosity”, implying he had paid for the home Ms. Porter and her husband lived in. This attack fell flat when Ms. Porter explained that she and her husband had paid for the lot of land purchased from Doug, and had paid for every penny of their own home.
Over the course of the trial the district attorney has shown numerous checks written to Holly Porter from C.V.M.A. accounts as well as personal accounts. Ms. Porter went on to explain that when a home is moved, a home loan can not be applied for until the house passes final inspection. Ms. Porter testified that she and her husband used all proceeds from the sale of their previous home, as well as borrowing money in the form of a loan from her grandmother and father-in-law. Ms. Porter then explained that she kept track of each expenditure on her home project and fully repaid both her relatives as soon as the house passed final inspection and the loan amount was received.
This information spurs the troubling question of whether the district attorney’s office deliberately sought to mislead the jury when claiming these checks to Holly Porter were gifts rather than a loan or whether they are so ignorant of the details of this case that they did not know the money was repaid within months.
Next to testify was Brianne Szuggar, Doug Porter’s niece who was hired to care for Mr. Craig after the 2002 accident that left him disabled. Ms. Szuggar explained it was her routine to arrive at Mr. Craig’s home early in the morning, change his catheter bag, wash his face, and dress him in his robe and slippers. Ms. Szuggar also visited with the elderly man each morning as she made his preferred breakfast of steel cut oats.
When asked about Mr. Craig’s relationship with his relatives, Ms. Szuggar replied that Mr. Craig often spoke fondly of his mother, however did not seem fond of his other family members. Ms. Szuggar recalled one instance when Mr. Craig used language so foul in reference to his sister that her daughter’s ears had to quickly be covered.
Prosecutors asked if Ms. Szuggar had ever seen the Pittmans, Whitneys, or Wassums visiting at Mr. Craig’s home, to which she replied she had not. Ms. Szuggar recalled Doug dropping in several mornings a week to check on Mr. Craig and bring groceries. The only other person she recalled seeing on the Craig ranch was a neighbor by the name of Jim Bennett.
Ms. Szuggar testified that Doug and Mr. Craig were close, recalling seeing Mr. Craig at many of their family gatherings in both Hickman and La Grange. Ms. Szuggar also confirmed that she and her husband had rented a home in Hickman owned by C&P investments which they eventually purchased at market value.
The last to testify before the noon break was Gary Porter, the brother of Doug Porter. Gary has been present in the courtroom throughout the proceedings but was allowed to testify in a limited capacity about the truck given to his son Jeff by Mr. Craig. Gary recalled when Mr. Craig signed over the pink slip and said he hoped Jeff enjoyed the truck. Months later when Doug told Gary that Mr. Craig wanted the truck back Gary agreed to return it. Doug made arrangements for the pickup to be hauled back to Craig’s ranch and for Gary to be reimbursed for $ 2,100.00 dollars worth of repairs done on the truck.
Gary Porter was excused for the present; however prosecutors announced the possibility of recalling him as a rebuttal witness.
Due to the 4th of July holiday weekend, there was only a short, two hour court day
The defense started today in explosive fashion as powerful witness Dick Abbott answered any lingering questions about the veracity of James Ten Napel. Abbott testified that in September of 2005 James Ten Napel was hired as the assistant pastor at Cedaredge First Baptist Church where Abbott has been the senior pastor for 22 years.
Abbott described Ten Napel as “the king of first impressions” while explaining that in the beginning the whole congregation was “wowed” by him. As the two men were becoming acquainted Ten Napel regaled Abbott with the story of his exciting and dramatic exodus from California. Ten Napel explained that he was a key witness in a grand jury investigation, and that the case he was involved in was very dangerous. Ten Napel went on to claim that he had to flee California after finding out Doug Porter had taken out contracts on the lives of he and his family. Many other people involved with the case, Ten Napel claimed, had already disappeared. Ten Napel added that Gary Kuhlman, a Hickman Church elder, had been missing for two months with no clues to his whereabouts. When Ten Napel testified under oath less than one week ago he denied making any such statements.
When church staff members began to notice an unusual pattern of blatant deception in Ten Napel’s day to day life, they attempted to confront him on the issue. Abbott explained that shortly after Ten Napel had been exposed as a liar he began exhibiting violent and aggressive behavior. Before Ten Napel’s employment at the church was finally terminated in July 2006, he had attempted to physically attack Abbott on three separate occasions. The official reasons cited for Ten Napel’s termination were “bellicose anger, lying and deceit”.
The one thing it appears James Ten Napel did tell the truth about was the fact that he was a key witness for the prosecution. Ten Napel was touted as a star witness and flown out to California twice in the last three weeks at the county’s expense. It seems, however, that despite the great expense, Ten Napel’s entire testimony was a fabrication.
The next witness for the defense was Agnes Dias, the mother-in-law of Doug Porter. Mrs. Dias testified that in 1999 her Hickman residence was only 75 feet from Doug’s home. Mrs. Dias, who had known Mr. Craig for decades, noticed Craig had begun to visit Doug’s house frequently hoping to persuade Doug to help him build an agriculture museum. Mrs. Dias testified that if Doug was not at home when Mr. Craig came to visit, Craig would knock on her door and ask where Doug was and when he would be home. Mrs. Dias testified that on some occasions Mr. Craig would wait for up to an hour for Doug to return home. Mrs. Dias explained that at first Doug had resisted involvement in the project due to his already busy schedule, but finally agreed in the face of Mr. Craig’s persistence.
Mrs. Dias testified that Mr. Craig’s visits to Doug’s home decreased dramatically after Doug finally consented to be a part of the project. This testimony shows a stark contrast to the picture of an opportunistic treasure hunter the prosecution attempted to portray.
In 2001 the Dias and Porter families sold their Hickman homes and moved to La Grange. Mrs. Dias testified that she and her husband Joe Dias were the first to live on the family property, living in a fifth-wheel trailer for over a year while they slowly fixed up the 832 square foot 1930’s era home they had moved on to the property. Mrs. Dias added that despite accusations to the contrary, she and her husband paid for the entire cost of the home, move, and repairs.
Upon moving to La Grange the couple encountered problems with the water on the property. Mrs. Dias describes the water as brown, rusty and full of iron. They then asked Mr. Craig to come up and assess the situation since he had experience with wells and drilling. It had been implied previously, by the prosecution, that Mr. Craig had never been to the La Grange property. Today’s testimony helped to disproved that theory, when it was shown that he did come up to give advice on the water problems as well as at least two other time Mrs. Dias specifically remembers.
The cross-examination of Mrs. Dias was not as notable for it's content as it was for the marked difference it revealed in assistant district attorney John Mayne’s demeanor. Mayne, who was affable and patient with his own witness’s, displayed hostility, aggression, and condescending arrogance when dealing with the seventy-two year old woman.
Next to take the stand was Jeff Porter, Doug’s nephew, who had worked on Mr. Craig’s ranch during the summers while he was in high school. Jeff described Mr. Craig as a grumpy old man. Despite Craig’s gruff nature, however, the two struck a genuine friendship. Jeff testified that he found the older man’s stories of World War II interesting. As the two grew closer, Mr. Craig even confided in Jeff about a woman he had fallen in love with in England, where he was stationed as an air plane mechanic during the war.
Mr. Craig, who was by all accounts an avid sports fan, began showing up to support Jeff at his high school football and basketball games. When Mr. Craig was injured in the 2002 accident, Jeff went to visit him in the Modesto rehabilitation hospital several times a week. When Mr. Craig was well enough to return home it was Jeff who picked him up at the rehab hospital and drove him home.
Noticeably absent from all Jeff Porter’s recollections of his time with Mr. Craig is the mention of any visits from any of Frank's relatives or the Pittmans. When asked directly Jeff testified that he had never once seen any of Mr. Craig’s relatives or heard of them coming to visit. Jeff recalled seeing Doug preparing food for Mr. Craig, making sure he was comfortable, and providing for his needs. He also did not see Tim or Michelle Pittman, who claim they were at Mr. Craig’s home seven days a week until late in the evening.
Jeff’s testimony will continue Monday morning. Court ended at 12:00 pm today for the 4th of July holiday.
The prosecution spent a total of eighteen court days raising questions, but proving nothing. In retrospect, it seems the district attorney’s whole case was built on small town gossip and speculation. The few substantial witnesses that were called either completely fell flat (James Ten Napel, Dan Ray) or reinforced the position of the defense (Mahlon Ford, Richard Peterson). Many of the more legitimate prosecution witnesses could have been confused for defense witnesses, as their testimony agreed so closely with the facts laid out in Kirk McAlister’s opening statements.
Possibly most harmful to the district attorney’s case was that so many of their witnesses projected the image of the small town malcontent with an axe to grind. Despite holding “meetings” to coordinate their stories, each new witness contradicted the last. James Ten Napel, Michelle Pittman, Tim Pittman, and Bud Whitney were all caught in gross exaggeration bordering on perjury.
The district attorney’s office seems to have spared no expense on prosecuting a case with no merit. Considering the massive amount of county money lavished on this case, the average citizen may indeed rethink California’s, or at least Stanislaus County’s, current financial leadership.
Court resumed after the noon break to hear the testimony of Sam Fullen. As a picture was shown of Doug’s driveway, Mr. Fullen was asked if he had built the rock pillars on either side of the driveway. Fullen responded that he was involved in the construction, but did not know what his boss had charged for the job. An unreadable copy of a check was shown, and Mr. Fullen was excused.
Next to be called was Brian Van Groningen, who sold season ticket seats for the San Francisco Giants. A pair of tickets were paid for by C.V.M.A. check. It has been noted by several witnesses that Mr. Craig was an avid sports fan, and several recall Doug and Frank attending Giant’s games together.
The final witness for the prosecution was Mike Hermosa, a detective for the district attorney's office. Hermosa was not asked questions, but rather led through a narration while a video played of the C.V.M.A. grounds. Hermosa pointed out where the baseball field had been constructed, materials for sprinkler systems, rolls of fencing, and other building materials. The video footage was evidence of a dream interrupted by county restrictions and the lawsuit of the Whitney family.
At 2:10 pm this afternoon the prosecution rested.
Court will resume tomorrow morning when the defense will begin, however testimony will end at noon for the holiday weekend.
The revolving door style of testimony from Monday was continued today. Numerous witnesses were called by the prosecution to answer only a few questions; however the relevance of some testimony to the case was not always clear.
The first witness called by the prosecution was Cheri Galonia, the great niece of Mr. Craig. Ms. Galonia testified concerning a phone conversation she had with Doug Porter in the days following Mr. Craig’s death. Galonia explained that she had called Doug on her Grandmothers behalf to inquire about funeral arrangements. The witness stated that Doug offered to let the family take over all funeral arrangements, but Galonia later admitted that the family failed to make any arrangements. As the time for Mr. Craig’s service drew near, arrangements eventually were made by Doug.
Dennis Welch was second to be called to the stand. Welch testified that his business sold a tree shredder to Doug and was paid by check from C.V.M.A accounts. The purpose for the purchase was not stated, but could have been related to the almond orchard that was cleared for the museum construction site. As assistant district attorney John Mayne attempted to extract more information from the witness, Welch admitted that he was not present during the sale and has never before had any contact with Doug. Welch’s records showed that the shredder was returned shortly after it was purchased. Welch’s records cite the reason for the return being due to mechanical malfunctions. The full purchase price of the equipment was refunded.
The third witness called was Ken Nickels, who described him self as a long time friend of Doug. Mr. Nickels was shown copies of two checks totaling $8,500.00 that had been written to him from a C.V.M.A. account. On cross-examination Mr. Nickels was allowed to explain that the money had been loaned to him during a difficult time in his life, but had long since been paid back.
The fourth witness called was Linda Young, an administrative assistant at Hughson Unified School District. Ms. Young showed a copy of Preston Bridges' enrollment card from his time at Hughson High School. The address on the enrollment card was the address of a rental home owned by Mr. Craig.
The district attorney’s fifth witness was Karan Hendon, Who at one time was the secretary for Cornish paving. Ms. Hendon showed invoices for two paving jobs. The first was for a small asphalt pad at Doug’s home, the second, more substantial job, was on C.V.M.A. property. Ms. Hendon detailed the work done on the museum parking area. Both jobs were paid by check from C.V.M.A. accounts.
The last witness to testify before the noon break was Dean Azevedo, the co-owner of Turlock House Movers. Azevedo testified that he has been friends with Doug for thirty years and has moved several houses over the years for Doug and his family members. He also testified to having done work to prepare the Old Rowe School House to be moved on to C.V.M.A. property.
When Azevedo was asked about his system of record keeping, He admitted that there was no formal “system”. However, his father and partner Dan Azevedo usually writes down and keeps estimates and contracts for all the house moves. Checks were then shown that had been written to Azevedo’s company from C.V.M.A. accounts. Azevedo did not recall exactly what jobs the checks were in reference to, but mentioned that district attorney detective Mike Hermosa had called him last night in attempts to help Azevedo remember that the checks might have been in payment for homes moved for two of Doug’s children.
Azevedo had driven to the historical school house with Doug in 2003 to write up an estimate for the move. Work to prepare the building to be moved started in 2005. Azevedo also remembered driving out to do an estimate on an old railway station in Waterford that Doug wanted to move on to C.V.M.A. as an exhibit of the history of the area.
The Noon break began forty minuets early due to district attorney scheduling problems. Court will resume at the normal time when the district attorney is expected to call the final two witnesses for the prosecution.
The afternoon session of court began with the continued cross-examination of a retired Highway Patrol accident reconstructionist, Richard Ahlborn. Questioning returned to the previously mentioned subject of the extraction of the GMC pick-up. Ahlborn explained that, though it is standard for a tow truck to fish out waterlogged vehicles in CHP investigations, in this case a Turlock Irrigation District crane was used. In a choice between damaging the vehicle intended for investigation and damaging the sides of the canal, it seems the canal proved more valuable.
Ahlborn testified that he personally witnessed the pick-up being dropped twice by the crane and explained that the vehicle sustained significant damage to the passenger’s side cab when pummeled by long arm of the crane. No divers were sent down to examine the state of the vehicle before its traumatic re-emergence on land; therefore if the battering altered anything in the truck interior it would be unknown to investigators.
Ahlborn further testified that though he took pictures of the interior of the vehicle, he at no time entered the vehicle, nor did he check any vehicle operations.
The next to testify was Kerrie Freeman, a building inspector for Stanislaus County. Ms. Freeman testified only briefly, showing an application for an electric water pump filled out by Doug. The cost of the permit was $91.00. Ms. Freeman has been employed at the Department of Public Works for two years, and therefore was not employed by Stanislaus County at the time the building permit was submitted.
Following Ms. Freeman, Brian Balbaugh took the stand. Balbaugh, who installed a gate at the Porter residences, showed an invoice for the driveway gate in the amount of $ 6,570.00. The payment to Balbaugh was made from a C.V.M.A. account.
Next to testify was Lynne Baker, a commercial appraiser for Stanislaus County. Ms. Baker showed copies of C.V.M.A. construction permits applied for by Doug Porter for the museum/exhibit hall, community center, classrooms and a baseball field. Ms. Baker testified that she does not work in the permit department and has nothing to do with approving or denying permits, casting confusion as to why she was called to testify on the issue.
Timothy Frantz was the last witness of the day. Mr. Frantz owns the nursery that surrounded Mr. Craig’s land. Mr. Frantz testified that he had inquired about buying the Craig ranch around 1998, but Craig declined his offer. Mr. Franz didn’t renew his offers until the summer of 2003, when he happened to see Doug making repairs to the fence on Mr. Craig’s pastures. Mr. Frantz testified that as the two men talked, Doug told him that if the ranch were ever to sell, Frantz Nursery would have the first opportunity to buy. Approximately a year later Mr. Frantz, who had heard of his neighbors passing, waited some weeks, then called Doug to offer once more to buy the land.
After a purchase price was agreed upon, escrow was due to close by mid August. However, due to the volume of equipment, vehicle parts and other miscellaneous paraphernalia on Mr. Craig’s ranch, the closing of escrow was postponed until December. The Frantz’s looked in to hiring someone to clean off the land, but the overwhelming job would cost an estimated $50,000.00.
At the end of the court day, the district attorney announced his intention to Judge Zeff to again call numerous witnesses for very limited testimony on Wednesday. The Prosecution has suffered from scheduling problems throughout the case, however barring further delay the prosecution will rest on Thursday morning.
The morning session of court has seen a parade of five witnesses take the stand. Detective Copeland first retook the stand this morning as his testimony was held over from Friday afternoon. The prosecution followed up with only one question regarding whether or not James Ten Napel had claimed to have actually inspected the scene of the 2002 accident. Ten Napel has related three different versions of the home-spun case work within the last four years. Copeland explained that Ten Naple had not actually been to the accident scene, but had only heard about it from others.
Copeland was then cross-examined by defense attorney Kirk McAllister, who asked if Copeland had been aware of Doug taking Mr. Craig on many long trips to Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, and Colorado. Copeland acknowledged having known about the trips, and no further questions were asked on cross examination. McAllister did, however, state that Copeland would be called for more direct questioning as a witness for the defense.
The second witness was Peggy Macrury, an evidence analyst for the Stanislaus County Sheriffs' Department. At this point the district attorney showed aerial photos of a home that was identified as a Porter residence; however it was not the home of Doug Porter. Ms. Macrury was asked if she had been in the county chartered plane when the photo was taken. After acknowledging that she was present at the time, Ms.Macrury was excused. No cross-examination followed.
The third witness was Ray Mendonca, a canal rider for the Turlock Irrigation District. A canal rider, Mendonca explained, follows the flow of released water from Turlock Reservoir down as it flows to ensure it gets to the ditch tenders on time. Mendonca also testified that it was part of his job to remove obstructions from the canal bank if any are present. Mendonca testified that he had driven the portion of the canal bank at approximately 11:15 am on the morning of the 2004 accident. He did not recall seeing any rocks on the bank at that time. When Mendonca returned by the same route hours later, he was alerted by the presence of patrol cars that an accident had occurred. Mendonca talked with officers and T.I.D. supervisors who were already on scene, after officers produced the rocks for viewing, Mendonca stated that he did not recall seeing them that morning.
On cross examination Mendonca was asked if he would have been at fault, according to his job description, for failing to remove rocks on the canal which had caused an accident. In reply Mendonca explained that he is only obligated to remove items that would obstruct passage. Strictly scheduled meeting times with the ditch tenders at each outlet would prohibit him from every small item in the roadway. When asked, Mendonca admitted that rocks of similar size are not uncommon on the canal banks. However, the rocks in that area were usually smaller. When shown photos of other rocks a mile down the bank, Mendonca testified that he had not noticed them that morning either. After Mendonca had finished viewing rocks and speaking with authorities at the scene, he continued on by driving through the accident scene in his work truck. No obstructions were present to protect the accident area for future investigation.
Next to take the stand was Donnie Nichols, a now retired Highway Patrolman. In 2004 Nichols specialized in inspecting vehicles involved in collisions for defect or malfunction. Nichols examined fuel systems, power train, steering, suspension, and brakes. No pre-existing problems were found. Mr. Nichols was not cross examined by the defense. At no point has Doug or his attorney claimed that the accident was caused by vehicle malfunction.
The last in the morning’s parade of witnesses was Richard Ahlborn, Another retired Highway Patrolman. Many witnesses in the case so far have already retired due to the long length of time since the accident to the trial date. Ahlborn, who formerly specialized in accident reconstruction, testified that the tire marks he examined on April 23, 2004 (the day after the accident) showed no signs of fishtailing or loosing control.
Multiple photos were shown of the GMC Sonoma being extracted from the water by a large crane. Ahlborn explained that it took three attempts to successfully retrieve the pick-up. On previous attempts the pick-up had been dropped or pummeled by the claw of the crane.
Mr. Ahlborn’s cross-examination continues after noon break.
Afternoon testimony was perplexing to say the least. The first witness up after the noon break was Mr. Laurence, a coroner, who was sent to read the report of Mr. Shmunck. It was Shmunck who actually preformed the autopsy but had moved out of the area and his former colleague was sent in his stead. It is curious that the district attorney's office did not make travel arrangements for the coroner, after flying people in from Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Colorado to give testimony that was more hurtful than helpful to their case.
Laurence read portions of Shmunck’s reports stating that Mr. Craig was 5’ 6’’ tall and weighed approximately 190 pounds. Laurence further confirmed that autopsy findings consistent with drowning. Other findings include two slight rib fractures and a sternum fracture, as well as significant heart disease. Laurence confirmed that the fractures were consistent with the expected injury from the impact of the car hitting the water.
Next up was Officer Copeland who displayed aerial photos he had taken when he had been taken up in a county plane for the sole purpose of taking photos of the museum sight, and Doug’s home. Pictures of the museum sight still prominently feature the road leading out to where the museum would have been, as well as the parking lot that had been intended for museum visitors.
It was the photos of Doug’s home that were lingered over the longest. Multiple pictures were taken, featuring the driveway entrance, the three other homes on the property, Doug’s home, and the pond in the middle of the homes. Assistant district attorney Baker repeatedly referred to the family ranch as a “compound”. The term seemed to be unwarranted as the ranch displayed a total lack of barbed wire, stock piled MRE’s, or any other oddity necessary to qualify the term “compound”.
Next detective Copeland displayed pictures on the overhead screen of Mr. Craig’s autopsy photos. As no questions or comments were made about the photos, one can only assume they were displayed for shock value, and in very poor taste.
Copeland then played a long tape recorded interview with Doug recorded within days of the accident. Of all the oddities in the day’s testimony this was paramount. The prosecution played a tape featuring a polite, forthcoming man, doing his best to supply them with any information possible.
All Doug’s statements agreed with facts brought out in the case. Furthermore, his account of the struggle to save his friend was quite moving. The tape ran nearly ten minutes past the scheduled end of the court day but everyone in the courtroom was completely engrossed. The tape ended with the sad far away sound of Doug’s voice saying “ I really thought I could save him, I really thought I could."
Officer Daniel Crooker resumed his testimony this morning after yesterday's interruption due to the prosecution's high profile witness James Ten Napel. Highlighting Ten Napel’s testimony with such distinction may have hurt the prosecutions case, as Ten Napel impeached himself several times during testimony. Past sworn statements made by Ten Napel wildly differed from his present day versions.
The weather on the afternoon of April 22, 2004 was the first point of examination. Crooker had noted in his report that it was extremely windy on that afternoon making tire tracks hard to read as they rapidly degraded.
Numerous Photos were shown of rocks lying in the canal bank roadway in other secondary locations up to a mile further down the canal. Theses photos prove the previous claims of suspicious town’s people to be false in saying the rocks at the accident scene were the only rocks on the canal bank for miles.
Questions then asked about the rocks actually at the accident scene were passed in notes from the jurors to attorneys. It had been previously stated that dirt on the bottom of one or two of the rocks appeared to be darker than the dirt on the canal bank. The question passed from a juror enquired if this “dark dirt” matched that of the soil in the adjoining orchard. Crooker paused to consider for several moments then added that the orchard was being flood irrigated at the time he was at the scene so he was not sure. It was also asked if the same “dark dirt” was found on the rocks seen a mile or so down the road. Crooker originally stated it was not present on the other rocks, but later admitted that he had not turned them over to observe the darkness of their dirt.
District attorney John Mayne asked if Crooker believed Doug Porter’s account of the accident was complementary to the story told by tire tracks at the scene. Crooker replied that he did not believe the two stories agreed. In a related line of questioning defense attorney Kirk McAllister asked Crooker why he had never asked Doug to walk through the scene with him to explain events. Crooker explained that he believed the original statement he had taken from Doug was detailed enough. Crooker did later admit that he took statements from Doug before he had ever looked at the crime scene.
Upon examining several more photos, Crooker confirmed that there were no footprints near the rocks except his own. Though Crooker had looked carefully for footprints he found none. This further discredits claims that anyone would stage rocks on a canal bank and purposefully plunge in to the swift current, staging an elaborate, exhausting, and dangerous rescue. The theory grows more ridiculous as facts come out in court.
The next witness was Travis Owens, who testified briefly. Owens stated only that he lived down the road from the accident site, and was home the day of the accident. He and Doug Porter were acquaintances, as Owens had at one time attended Hickman Church. However The Porters had only visited the Owens home once in 1997. It was also noted that the Owens’ kept a Doberman on their property. Doug’s reasons for seeking help from Vasquez, who was in full view and had no large dogs with him, would be obvious.
The next Witness was Dr. Paradis who took the stand only long enough to confirm that Mr. Craig was deceased upon arriving at memorial hospital, and that the cause of death was drowning.
The case of the prosecution crumbled today before their very eyes as defense attorney Kirk McAllister obliterated the credibility of James Ten Napel. By comparing stories told by Ten Napel on the stand with previous statements he had made under oath it became obvious that one of the accounts, or both, were greatly embellished lies.
It was obvious from the start of cross examination that a closer look at Ten Napel’s story was going to show far more of his character and motives than the prosecution wanted. McAllister started where Mayne left off on the subject of Ten Napel’s “ministry” in Colorado. Ten Napel had gotten a job at the First Baptist Church in Cedar Edge, and admitted that right away he began showing all his new acquaintances news clippings about Doug Porter’s case and boasting that he was a “very important witness”. He denies further allegations that he told the pastor of the Colorado church that he had to flee California, because Doug had a contract out on his life. Ten Napel also denied giving that same minister further proof that his life was in danger, by telling him the fact that Gary Kuhlman (a Hickman Church Elder) was already missing.
As a point of record Mr. Kuhlman is not now, nor ever was, missing, and in fact has previously testified in seemingly good mental and physical condition. Perhaps more light will be shed on the statements in question through future testimony.
When asked directly, Ten Napel admitted that he had been contacted numerous times by Bud Whitney, the husband of Mr. Craig’s niece. The court has already heard repeated testimony that Whitney and other self appointed crusaders had endeavored to incriminate Doug Porter in hopes of spurring police action. The Whitney’s have filed a blanket law suit against Doug Porter, all his children, Hickman Church, the elder’s of the church, and their insurance companies, in an attempt to profit in any possible way from Mr. Craig’s estate.
When focus turned to Ten Napel’s role as the C.V. M. A. fund raiser, he admits that he did not raise one cent during the year and a half he was employed to do so. He could not compete, he claimed, with the larger Ag center being built by the county around the same time.
Tied in to this same time frame was the loan/gift of $30,000.00 Ten Napel received in order to qualify for a loan on the home of his dreams. When McAllister asked if the arrangement for loaning the funds had hinged upon his success in fund raising for the museum, Ten Napel acknowledged it to be true. If Ten Napel had succeeded in his fund raising endeavors the loan was to be forgiven.
Still insisting that the thousands were given only as a gift, Ten Napel denied ever talking to Bill York, his accountant and financial adviser, about the loan. Neither does Ten Napel recall York advising him that it would be morally questionable to mislead his financial lenders by pretending that his actual debt was $30,000.00 dollars less than it was in reality. It had been established that Ten Napel had failed in fund raising, the condition predicating the loan being forgiven. It was then that Ten Napel was asked about knowing all along that if no funds were raised, the money would be repaid when Ten Napel sold his home.
Defense attorney Kirk McAllister then read Ten Napel’s sworn deposition made in April of 2007, where Ten Napel had claimed otherwise. Ten Napel’s 2007 confessions of discussing what he then acknowledged to be a loan with York as well as another man, Jerry Morgan were read aloud. Reading further in the deposition, Ten Napel boasts that he knew he was expected to repay the funds but had chosen of his own volition not to because he and Doug were no longer friends.
Moving to the subject of the 2002 accident, Ten Napel admits that he became suspicious of the circumstances of the accident when he heard different stories around town. Ten Napel then testified that he had driven up Lake Road shortly after the accident to investigate the accident scene, but stated he never found the tree, and did not know where that actual accident site was. At this time a report made by Detective Copeland was produced. When McAllister read aloud the quote from Ten Napel saying that he had been to the accident site and reports that the road is clear for hundreds of feet before and after the oak tree involved in the collision.
When asked which version was true—that either he had or had not been to the accident site, Ten Napel admitted he had lied to the detective. Though Ten Napel had looked for the fateful tree, he admitted he never found it and was ignorant as to the clarity of the roadway in that area.
Further inconsistencies in Ten Napel’s testimony were brought out when the 2004 accident was discussed. Ten Napel testified today that he had seen a GMC pickup that he assumes was Doug driving at a high rate of speed the day before the accident and on the day of the accident. In his testimony today Ten Napel estimated Doug to be going 50 mph at the first sighting and 30 mph at the second sighting. When his original statements to Detective Copeland were again brought out it was shown that Ten Napel had changed Doug’s estimated speed at the second sighting by 20 mph. This may seem inconsequential; however Ten Napel had opportunity to review his previous statements before testifying but still chose to alter his recollection to agree with the district attorney's theory of how fast Doug was driving at the time of the accident.
At one point in his testimony Ten Napel was flatly asked if it was his habit to make things up when it suited him. In response, Ten Napel hesitated and asked if the court would repeat the question.
When questions were passed from the jurors to the bailiff asking about what electronics had been purchased for Ten Napel when he went to work for C.V.M.A, he replied that he had a television, laptop computer, cell phone and printer. Ten Napel believed they were purchased at Best Buy. This coincides with defense claims that a C.V.M.A. check made out to Best Buy electronics store was not for the personal benefit of Doug Porter, but rather to enable Ten Napel to show promotional videos to prospective donors. Other expenditures cleared up by Ten Napel include some of the invoices from Denair Lumber supposed to have benefited Doug Porter. In reality, the lumber was used to build a large deck off the back of the C.V.M.A. construction office. Ten Napel described it as a 20’x12’ redwood deck.
The long awaited testimony of James Ten Napel began this morning. The twice flown out star witness from Colorado had been called out of order, as cross examination of Officer Crooker is not yet complete. Ten Napel was a one time employee of C.V.M.A. hired to raise funds for the project.
Ten Napel explains that it was apparent early on that Mr. Craig’s money would not be enough to build the kind of museum he had envisioned. Due to the short fall a three part plan was made to attempt to compensate. The first money to start with were all funds donated by Mr. Craig, second were the gains Doug and Frank hoped for in the stock market, third was money that was to be raised from agriculture related corporate sponsors. It was this third part of the plan that Ten Napel was hired to fulfill.
While being questioned by the district attorney Ten Napel wandered in and out of various time periods in his story. First beginning during the week of the 2004 accident on the canal bank. Ten Napel’s home at the time was adjacent to the same canal bank, though miles away from where the accident actually took place. It was Ten Naples testimony that he had been working out of doors frequently at the time, twice witnessing Doug driving dangerously fast down the canal bank. The first time was the morning before the accident, and the second was the morning of the accident.
At this point in Ten Napel’s rambling narrative he went back in time to 1990, when he had first met Doug Porter. Ten Napel was then a sports writer for the Turlock journal and had met Doug and his son Kyle, whom he coached, at the California state finals wrestling tournament. This was his first of what he testified to hundreds of interviews Ten Napel recalls having with Doug during his stint as a sports writer.
Ten Naple describes his relationship with Doug over the years as close, admitting that he had always admired Doug for years earlier, completely changing his life, quitting his job in order to go to bible college and go in to the ministry. Eventually Ten Napel admits he wanted to emulate his friend in this way.
Ten Napel testified that in January of 2000 he did indeed follow Doug’s example, quitting his award winning job as a sports writer, for the Modesto Bee, to go in to ministry. Ten Napel was then hired by C.V.M.A., but he claims at first he had no real job title or defined responsibilities. Testifying that he was originally hired to be a pastor at the church, a fund raiser for the museum, curator for the museum upon completion, and to “be part of the woodwork” of all that was going on in the church. In church records no mention is ever made of Ten Napel being hired as anything other than a fund raiser for the museum from the beginning.
It was also at this time that Ten Napel explains that he and his wife desired to move from Turlock to the country of some out lying area. Ten Napel admits mentioning his desire to move to Doug, and for no apparent reason Doug offering to give (not loan) Ten Napel $30,000 to help him to do so. The only conditions, Ten Napel claims, is that he could not speak to Mr. Craig, the church Elders, or any one in the Porter family about the generous gift. As time wore on and Ten Napel admittedly raised no money for the museum, the board of Elders became increasingly disappointed with the lack of progress on Ten Napels part. Ten Napel claims it was also around this time that Doug began talking with him about repaying the “gift” of thirty thousand dollars, which he mysteriously began to refer to as a loan.
Among Ten Napel's more damaging claims made about Doug were claims that he (Doug) had made several statements about the museum project being easier to complete if Craig were not around. Ten Napel also at this point claimed Doug gave him three different accounts of the 2002 accident causing suspicion on Ten Napel's part. The first account involved a car coming around a curve in the road and crossing over the double yellow line, causing Doug to swerve and hit a tree. The second account included an oncoming car but Doug said after that he wasn’t really sure what happened. The third account Doug mentioned that he may have also briefly fallen asleep. It bears reminding that all three of these elements were exactly what Doug related to the insurance investigator within days of the accident.
The district attorney's line of questioning ended by explaining that Ten Napel had moved to Cedar Edge, Colorado. Ten Naple was then asked if he had had opportunity to be involved with Christian ministries there. He replied that he had.
Though Cross examination of Ten Napel began thirty minutes before the noon break, it will be included in the afternoon update. Already many interesting points of information and inconsistencies have been revealed.
California Highway Patrol officer Daniel Crooker testified throughout the entire afternoon session. Crooker testified that he had shown up at the accident scene at 4:18 PM, about an hour after the tragic events unfolded. Paramedics had already departed leaving Doug and his family, who had rushed to his side, along with Mr. Vasquez and two sheriff deputies on scene.
As officer Crooker approached he saw Doug, still wet and huddled in a blanket, sitting on the foot bridge near the spot where he had earlier hoisted his friend from the canal. A brief account was taken from Doug on what may have caused the accident. The two men then exchanged information in case future contact was needed. After Doug left the scene, Crooker began examining tire tracks and taking pictures of the rocks that Doug explained had veered the truck off course and in to the canal waters.
Though Crooker confirms Doug did indeed hit the river rocks lying on the canal bank, he did not feel Doug’s accounting of events was entirely accurate. On cross examination Crooker admitted that it is very common to have some variations between what people tell you caused an accident and what actually happened. Crooker explained that the emotion or confusion of the event sometimes affects people’s recollections.
Throughout Crooker’s testimony numerous photos of rocks, and canal banks, as well as aerial photos of the whole area were shown. The rocks were brought in and displayed and some amount of tire tread could still be seen on one of them.
Defense attorney Kirk McAllister then had Crooker read from his report as to the actual statements he had taken down from Jose Vasquez, the young man whom Doug had flagged down for help. Vasquez’s original statements differed slightly from the account he gave in court earlier today. This is understandable due to the years that have passed since the accident; however the details were significant. In original statements taken at the scene Vasquez says when he first noticed Doug Porter approaching him he was running excitedly saying “My buddy is in real bad shape, do you have a cell phone?” Further differences include Vasquez originally saying Doug had done CPR for 15 minutes until paramedics arrived.
Crooker’s testimony was supposed to continue tomorrow morning, however, the prosecution reiterated their request to call a witness out of order tomorrow in order to prevent the need to fly the same witness to California from Colorado for a third time.
The morning session of court was certainly eventful, however very little testimony was actually given. The jury and witnesses were kept out of the court room for a full hour while Judge Zeff and the attorneys were in private chambers. When the Jury was ushered in it soon became apparent that two of the original jurors were absent. Judge Zeff then explained that the missing jurors had indeed been excused and replaced by the drawing of lots with two of the five alternates. The entire courtroom was next assured by the Judge that though changes had been made, the days schedule would continue on as planed, and speculation as to why juror substitutions had been made would be inappropriate.
The first witness of the day, Greg Mattes, took the stand shortly after 11:00 am. Mattes explained that though he now lives in Oklahoma, in April of 2004 he was a volunteer EMT in the small town of Hughson. Mattes was the first of the medical personal to respond to the canal bank the day of the fatal accident. Though Mattes was not very articulate in his answers, his feelings were clear. The sum of all Mattes’s curt responses to questioning relayed that when he arrived on the accident scene Doug and a “Hispanic man” were standing near Mr. Craig who was lying on the canal bank. Mattes recalled Mr. Craig looked pale, had no pulse, and was non-responsive upon arrival. When assistant district attorney John Baker inquired about Doug’s demeanor, Mattes responded that he (Doug) had no emotion. Mattes went on to explain that he was not crying or hysterical. Mattes added that of all the cases he had ever responded to this instance stood out in his mind as the only time he had ever observed a witness who appeared to him to be completely unemotional. When cross examined Mattes admitted that during his time at the accident scene his attention was focused on Mr. Craig not Doug Porter’s emotional state. The two men exchanged only as much conversation as a few medical questions. Mattes also admitted that though he had seen Doug around town before, the two men were not acquainted, and he was unaware of Doug’s usual temperament and would not know if he were the type of person given to emotional displays.
Next to take the stand was Jose Vasquez, who had been irrigating near the canal the day of the accident. Vasquez recalled that he was sitting in his truck waiting to switch the water to a different part of the orchard, when he noticed a man walking toward his truck. Vasquez then identified Doug Porter as the man he saw that day, and described Doug as being soaking wet and exhausted as he approached. Vasquez testified that Doug then asked him for help, and to call 911. Vasquez then followed Doug to the canal bank where he saw a man lying on the slope of the canal bank. Vasquez recalled the man (Mr. Craig) was purple. It was also noted that Mr. Craig was neither breathing nor responsive at any point witnessed by Vasquez. At that point Vasquez called 911 while Doug started CPR and mouth to mouth. When Mr. Vasquez was asked to describe the Defendants demeanor, He described Doug as being completely exhausted, worried, and shocked.
After lunch CHP officer Crooker will take the stand. Assistant district attorney John Mayne, while speaking to the Judge, said he expects Cooker’s testimony to last all afternoon and continue on into tomorrow morning. Mayne then asked if another witness could possibly be called out of order tomorrow due to the fact that the county was paying to fly him to California from out of state. It was further explained that the county had flown him out last week but had not scheduled properly and it was necessary to fly him out a second time.
Afternoon testimony picked up on the subject of Mr. Craig’s unhappiness with Doug Porter’s decreasing visits to the Craig ranch. Peterson testified that part of the reason a live-in care giver was hired was to lessen the need for the constant visits of others. When Peterson was asked if he was aware that Doug coached high school wrestling, Peterson acknowledged that he was. Peterson was asked if he had considered that the time frame in which he recalls Doug’s visits lessening was also during the most intense portion of wrestling season. Peterson admits that though he knew Doug coached, he had no idea when wrestling season was.
The subject then turned to the day of the fatal accident in April of 2004. Defense attorney Kirk McAllister asked Peterson about Mr. Craig’s mood that morning as he waited for Doug to arrive. Peterson recalled that Mr. Craig was excited and happy about his outing with Doug that day. When asked more specifically about Mr. Craig’s feelings toward Doug that day, Peterson testified that Mr. Craig was not angry, fearful, or planning to confront Doug that day. This is contradictory to claims made by the Whitneys and the Pittmans. Peterson did not ever recall Mr. Craig saying that he wanted Doug off the museum project.
More light was shed on the much talked about Wassum home “meetings”. Most witnesses have coyly described conversation to have revolved around “the situation with Mr. Craig”. However, the more forthright Mr. Peterson explained that the group had gathered to discuss their suspicion of Doug Porter. Peterson went on to explain that the band of small town locals decided it would be up to them to spur the police on to action. The group even went as far as making plans to drum up evidence and look for people who might have testimony they might find helpful. Peterson, who testified that he had always gotten along with Doug, stated that the group attempted to convince him to join them in their accusations, even hinting that Peterson should be afraid that Doug would harm him.
It was at this point that Peterson admitted that he has been contacted several times by John Wassum regarding this case. Peterson went on to admit that he had, in fact, just returned from the afternoon break in which John Wassum had taken him to lunch. Peterson denies the case was discussed during the break.
Peterson was then asked about the visit he had from assistant district attorney John Baker and his investigator Mike Hermosa. The duo had flown to Wisconsin, where Peterson now lives, to have a two hour talk in April of 2008. Peterson testified that he had given two previous statements to officials in 2004, but had not been contacted in the four years since then. He admitted that it was a “weird coincidence” that the DA showed up in person the very night before he was to give his deposition in the civil case brought against Doug by the Whitney’s.
In the final portion of his testimony, Peterson was asked about the last time he recalled seeing Bud Whitney at Mr. Craig’s house. He did not remember the exact date, but said that Whitney had stayed for a few hours that afternoon. When asked about dinner that night, Peterson remembers specifically preparing the meal of a very simple unseasoned salmon due to Whitney’s sensitive stomach. Peterson also recalled Mr. Craig mocking Whitney about his sensitivities to food. This contradicted Whitney’s previous testimony that he, Whitney, had prepared a “gourmet halibut dinner” that everyone had enjoyed.
After Mr. Peterson finished, Deputy Sheriff Garrde took the stand. His testimony was brief due to the fact that he turned the accident seen over to CHP officers ten minutes after arriving at the site of Doug and Frank’s 2004 accident. Garrde recalls seeing Doug wet and huddled in a blanket upon his arrival. Garrde listened to Doug explain that he had lost control of the vehicle and gone into the canal. The water had quickly filled the truck and it took Doug several minutes to free Mr. Craig from the vehicle. Doug then held on to Frank and was carried down stream where he clung to a foot bridge piling. Continuing to hold on to Frank, Doug climbed steadily toward the bank and heaved Mr. Craig out of the water. Garrde recalls that the canal was full that time of year and the current was moving swiftly.
Testimony then ended for the day and will resume Wednesday morning.
Pat Golding, the interim superintendent of Hickman School, testified this morning. Ms. Golding took the stand briefly to verify that in July of 2003 Hickman School had purchased five acres from Hickman Church for future school expansion. On cross examination defense attorney Kirk McAllister asked Ms. Golding if she was aware of any problems with the town of Hickman lacking water. Ms. Golding recalled that lack of pressure in the town’s water table had been an on going problem for years and added that county officials had contacted the school recently to inform them they were looking for a sight to drill a test well. It has been the testimony of many involved with the C.V.M.A. project that progress was long delayed due to lack of sufficient pressure for such a large project.
The next witness called was Richard Peterson, who was Frank’s live in care giver. Mr. Peterson moved in with Mr. Craig in 2003 and stayed in his home till April of 2004 when Mr. Craig passed away. The two men had become acquainted when Peterson moved in with Mr. Craig’s neighbor John Veldhuizen in order to start an angle fish farm. Eventually Mr. Craig invited Peterson to move in with him as he was no longer happy with his previous caregiver. Peterson describes his duties as cooking, cleaning, bathing Mr. Craig, and caring for the garden. The prosecution questioned Mr. Peterson about multiple details of the relationship he witnessed between Mr. Craig and Doug Porter. Peterson described the relationship as friendly; however he added that Mr. Craig was unhappy that Doug’s visits had been less frequent since January.
Peterson re-confirmed testimony given by previous witnesses that it was Mr. Craig’s habit to use cash in all his dealings. He recalls Mr. Craig paying for tractors and farm equipment purchases in cash as well as keeping a large envelope of cash on hand for groceries and other daily needs. Peterson further testified that either Mr. Craig or Doug Porter would pay him his wages in cash.
Peterson’s testimony did seriously differ from that of former witnesses Michelle Pittman and her husband Tim, who repeatedly testified that they visited Mr. Craig seven days a week. Peterson however says twice a week was the most he saw the couple in the home. When asked if Peterson had ever heard that the Pittman’s were to inherit Mr. Craig’s ranch after his death, he testified that he had. Upon further questioning it was discovered that the Pittman’s had only told him of this supposed inheritance after Mr. Craig’s death. Peterson had never heard Mr. Craig say anything about wishing the Pittman’s to inherit his home; however Peterson added that he got the feeling that that was what the Pittman’s had always wanted. Peterson also claimed that Mr. Craig’s frustration was focus on the slow progress of the project and not at Doug himself. Peterson testified that Mr. Craig had only said he wanted to have more control and be more informed of details regarding permits. Peterson did not hear Mr. Craig say he wanted to “pull the plug” on Doug as Mr. Pittman had testified.
Peterson’s testimony also disagreed with that of former witness Bud Whitney. Mr. Whitney claimed that in his last visit with Mr. Craig that Craig had “energetically” walked across the living room and back without pain or discomfort before announcing he was going to cut Doug out of the museum project. Peterson testified that Mr. Craig could only shuffle two or three steps from his wheel chair to the couch, and certainly could not have paced across a room and back. Peterson further testified that he had only seen the Whitney’s at Mr. Craig’s home twice in the year and a half he cared for Mr. Craig.
Peterson recalls driving Mr. Craig by the museum sight to view progress. Peterson testified to seeing building materials at the sight, but recalls Mr. Craig cursing profusely and becoming angry fearing the metal beams would rust in the elements. Peterson also testified that Mr. Craig frequently became angry and cursed regularly so such outbursts were not unusual.
The testimony of Dan Ray continued until court adjourned for the weekend. Ray was on the defensive for the duration of his testimony as he attempted to explain the numerous errors found in his accounting.
Before lunch, defense attorney Kirk McAllister pointed out many examples of expenditures wrongly assumed to benefit Doug Porter. After lunch, misallocations on Day's part were shown in multiple categories. It was shown that two checks made out to Hensley Paving Company were attributed to the sole benefit of Hickman Community Church. This assertion directly contradicts the previous testimony by the Hensley’s themselves. The Hensley’s had testified previously that the bulk of the work they had done was for the museum project. Aerial photographs were shown of a road going back to the museum sight, as well as a parking lot in front of a foundation pad for the museum building. Ray explained that he made the false assumption because of information provided by District Attorney Investigator Mike Hermosa. When presented with the true circumstances, Ray reluctantly admitted that, in this instance at least, Hermosa’s information was wrong.
Two more expenditures misallocated by Ray involve former C.V.M.A employee, James Ten Naple. A loan for $30,000.00 was extended to Mr. Ten Naple to help with costs involved with relocating his family to the Hickman area to begin fundraising for the C.V.M.A. project. Ray did not equate these expenditures as being museum related.
Another expenditure for $3,000.00 was made to purchase a computer and video equipment for Mr. Tenaple to assist him in his fund-raising endeavors. Ray, seeing only the $3,000.00 expenditure to Best Buy, wrongly made the assumption that the purchases were made to benefit Doug, both personally and electronically. Further examples of Ray’s assumptions and lack of familiarity with the case were noted when he replied to the prosection's query concerning a charge on Doug’s credit card statement. “Do you know what kind of store J.S. West is?” asked Mayne. His incorrect reply was, “Yes, I believe it is a clothing store.”
When assistant district attorney Mayne was given a chance to redirect the questioning, he thought it important to have Ray clarify that his $120,000.00 paycheck did not include the cost of paper, staples, secretarial fees or mileage incurred.
Dan Ray, forensic accountant and former FBI accountant, was cross examined today. A closer look at how Mr. Ray came to his conclusions left the prosecution seriously weakened. Ray testified to being initially contacted by the district attorney’s office, and the subsequent signing of a contract to “follow the money” in exchange for $120,000.00 of Stanislaus county revenues.
Turning attention to the numerous spreadsheets and pie charts, defense attorney Kirk McAllister asked what information he had used when categorizing the expenditures of C.V.M.A funds. Ray explained he relied solely on bank and credit card statements, vendor receipts, as well as the numerous reports supplied by prosecution detective Mike Hermosa. Ray analyzed every single transaction made in a C.V.M.A. account as well as all transactions made in Doug’s personal accounts, assigning each transaction to one of fifteen possible categories. The problem with this method was that Det. Hermosa did not fully supply Ray with the information he would need to understand the account activity. For example thousands of dollars Ray had previously assumed were diverted to benefit Doug Porter’s personal accounts, were in reality reimbursements to Doug’s credit card for trips on which he had taken Mr. Craig.
It was noted that no credit card existed for C.V.M.A. accounts. Ray admitted to being completely unaware of trips touring Europe as well as tours across the United States taken at Mr. Craig’s request, to visit friends and tour other agricultural and WWII museums.
Further examples include Ray’s assumption that all checks made out to cash were to the personal benefit of Doug Porter. Ray was completely unaware that it was Mr. Craig’s habit to use cash almost exclusively in his dealings. Ray also admitted to being unaware that old or “antique” farm equipment was frequently purchased using cash. Ray was also unaware of whether persons employed to work on Craig’s ranch were paid in cash, or of how many of his medical and care-giver expenses were paid for in cash.
With such a lack of knowledge about the realities of the case, Mr. Ray’s previous theories about money benefiting Doug Porter personally are in serious need of a second look. Ray himself admitted that if such possibilities occurred it would definitely affect his findings.
Cross-examination of Ray was also able to dispel the myth that the La Grange property, on which the Porters live, was purchased with C.V.M.A. funds. After combing through Doug and Vicki’s personal account and real estate records, Ray testified that the land was purchased for $160,000.00 with proceeds from the profit they made on the sale of their Hickman home. A construction loan for $176,000.00 was taken out in name of Doug and Vicki Porter for the building of their La Grange home, with payments being made from the Porters’ personal accounts.
Mr. Ray’s testimony will continue after the noon break.
Court resumed this morning with proceedings filled with financial info and figures. The testimony of Denair Lumber's accounts receivable clerk, Ms. Jamero, continued today. The prosecution went over every invoice for the Central Valley Museum of Agriculture's charge account with special emphasis on any materials used or ordered by Doug's Children; Kyle Porter, Aaron Porter, and Monica Tanner.
Cross examination by the defense showed that all invoices for materials used by Doug's children were also paid with checks or credit cards from the personal accounts of Kyle, Aaron and Monica.
Next to take the stand was Dan Ray, a former FBI forensic accountant turned free-lance specialist. After the prosecution's hired gun went on at length concerning his expertise and credentials, he unfolded his theories about Doug Porter transferring money from one account to another for his own benefit. Ray testified that he believes $820,634 was misspent, though he admits that he could not account for every penny and actual figures may be higher or lower. Despite Ray's expertise and credentials he testified to being "confused" when he saw a more complete financial accounting disclosed by defense accountant, Jerry Dellar. Numerous flow charts were shown to explain money moving from one C.V.M.A. account to another.
It is expected that Mr. Ray's testimony will resume after lunch and continue for the duration of the afternoon session
Testimony has been canceled for tomorrow due to information that the district attorney's team failed to turn over to defense council until late last night. One day's time will be given to review all previously unshared information and testimony will resume on friday when James Ten Napel is expected to testify.
The cross examination of Bud Whitney’s testimony continued only a short while in the afternoon session. It was discussed exactly how much time Whitney spent on his homespun investigation, calls to potential witnesses, as well as numerous meetings with his civil attorney. Defense attorney Kirk McAllister’s final question of Whitney summed up the seeming motivation behind all Whitney’s actions and testimony thus far when he asked “ Isn’t it true that you’ve spent more time advancing the cause of your wife’s law suit than you ever spent with Mr. Craig when he was alive?”
The next witness for the defense was Paul Harvey, a Hughson local who described himself as a friend of a friend of Mr. Craig’s. It was Harvey’s testimony that he visited Mr. Craig’s house once a month. The last visit being two weeks before Craig’s death. Harvey claims that at that visit Frank proclaimed “things are bad, Doug is taking my money” then went on to force his acquaintance to promise him something saying “If I die anywhere other than in my bed, get justice for me, it’s up to you Mr. Harvey”. Harvey then demonstrated the exaggerated finger pointing and hand waving involved in his alleged conversation with Frank. Upon cross examination it was revealed that Harvey never told any law enforcement officers about the conversation after Mr. Craig passed away. It wasn’t until a friend (Gary Miller) directed an investigator to call Harvey weeks later that he thought to bring it up. Harvey did not attend Mr. Craig’s funeral, nor did he attend any meeting, official or non-official, regarding Mr. Craig’s affairs.
Following Mr. Harvey was the testimony of Brian Henson, a one-time aspiring elder at Hickman Community Church. Henson, it seems, was brought in solely to testify about the April 2004 elders meeting in which Doug allegedly made a comment with reference to Mr. Craig’s death. Randy Bergman and Gary Kuhlman had previously testified to the same meeting; however Henson’s recollections do not line up at all with the testimony of either of the previous witnesses. Henson’s version begins with conversation amongst the elders about Doug Porter’s request to take a leave of absence from the pulpit to work more full time in the Mexico ministry he had started some years earlier. Henson claims that though he was not a voting elder, he alone opposed Doug’s request and eventually the others followed suit. This point of the recollection later came in to question when the defense pointed out that an extended leave of a head pastor (who had been with the church for over 15 years) would have been a significant discussion amongst the elders yet it is not even mentioned in the minutes of that particular elder’s meeting. Henson testified that later in the meeting the museum project was put on hold due to a lock on the land resulting from Mr. Craig’s relatives contesting his will. This point in Henson’s story raised more questions as this particular meeting was held the day before Mr. Craig passed away, making it an unorthodox time for a will to be contested.
Then came the point when Henson’s story truly contradicted that of the other witnesses as he states that following some discussion about too many claims on Doug’s time, Doug turned directly to Henson and said “Frank is an old man and he may not be around that long”. It is at this point Henson claims that all the other elders began laughing and making jokes about all the possible ways Mr. Craig might die. Henson recalled one elder laughed and said “maybe he’ll die in a car wreck”. Later that night Henson claims that he called fellow elder Dave Piazza on the phone to confront him about how grieved he was with Mr. Piazza and the other elders’ for their lack of integrity (though Henson later admitted he also was laughing at the time). Henson also testified to calling Gary Kuhlman to voice his disappointment.
When asked why he did not call the authorities the next day when Mr. Craig died, he claims it was because of the gratitude he had for Doug whom a few years earlier had given marriage counseling when Henson’s wife had left him and they were on the brink of divorce. Henson claims that for this reason he decided to just “sit back and let the long arm of justice take its course”.
On cross examination it was made clear that although Henson went through a three year elder in training process, he never actually became an elder at Hickman Church. The one person who steadily opposed his qualification was Doug Porter. The reason for Henson’s disqualification was not fully explained by Henson; referring vaguely to an indiscretion he had committed that brought reproach upon the church.
The next to testify was the district attorneys detective Mike Hermosa. Hermosa showed pictures of Doug Porter’s driveway, his driveway gate, his mail box, as well as the mail boxes of his neighbors and relatives.
Next called was Ms. Jamero from the accounts receivable department of Denair lumber. Many invoices were shown and discussed, for various items that were signed by Doug Porter for materials used by Hickman Church, Doug Porter, Kyle Porter, and Aaron Porter. It was noted that there were checks from the Porter’s personal accounts to pay for the majority of the invoices for the above mentioned personal items.
Cross examination of Ms. Jamero will continue Wednesday.
Morning testimony began with John Wassum, A retired farmer and Hughson local. It was Wassum who hosted the gatherings of locals mentioned by so many previous witnesses. Mr. Wassum had little to offer in his testimony but that he had visited Mr. Craig the Sunday before he passed away. Wassum’s last visit lasted only an hour in which Mr. Craig at some point complained that he only got junk mail. When cross examined about this visit Wassum specifically testified that at that time Mr. Craig could not walk, and at most could shuffle a few steps with a walker.
Testimony then turned to two different meetings recalled by Mr. Wassum. The first held by Doug and Vicki Porter after the 2004 accident in which Mr. Craig died. The Porters had invited the whole community to have an open dialog about any questions they might have concerning the project, at which Mr. Wassum recalled asking if there was enough money left to finish the project. A few days later the Wassums held a meeting of a different kind at their home to discuss the theories and grievances held by some community members concerning Doug Porter. Doug was not invited.
Next to testify was Allan Craig, Frank Craig’s nephew. Craig admitted to seldom visiting his uncle, and that they were not very close. Craig recalled making a trip to his uncle’s home the night before his funeral to search through his things and recalled seeing someone at Mr. Craig’s ranch in a white truck with a trailor walking around. No more was said of this point nor was it elaborated on by attorneys. Later in testimony Craig referred to Frank’s fears of being “burned out” of his home. Only when forced to explain on cross examination did Craig explain that this comment was made in reference to neighbors ("an old man and a kid") up the street that Frank believed had stolen his guns. It was also revealed on cross examination that Allen had borrowed $10,000.00 from his uncle which he had no arrangements to repay.
The third witness of the morning was Bud Whitney, the husband of Frank Craig’s niece. Whitney’s testimony began with his recollections of his last visit with Frank one week before his death. Whitney recalled Frank energetically walking across the room and back with out the assistance of a walker or cane. This directly contradicts the testimony of Michelle Pittman, John Veldhuizen, and John Wassum concerning Frank’s physical abilities at the time. Whitney further testified that Frank had confided in him that he was afraid of Doug, but had sworn him to secrecy. It was bought up that Whitney, as a former social worker was a mandated reporter of abuse. If such a conversation had occurred he would have been bound to inform authorities, and all the more incentive to do so out of concern for a relative. Whitney reported nothing to authorities; neither did he express concerns to anyone.
At this point Whitney’s testimony revisited the gatherings at John Wassum’s house. Whitney, who was in town to visit his civil attorney, was invited to the “meeting”. Whitney took notes of everyone’s statements at the meeting, from these notes Whitney then wrote his own investigative reports. The reason for Whitney’s investigative work, he explained, was because he didn’t feel law enforcement was working fast enough. Within months of Mr. Craig’s death Whitney forwarded his civil attorney and the district attorney his investigative reports, as well as name and phone numbers of people he felt should be witnesses. The week after Mr. Craig’s death Whitney began a blanket law suit of Doug Porter, Kyle Porter, Aaron Porter, Monica Tanner, Hickman Community church, and Doug Porter’s insurance company which is still on going.
Whitney’s testimony continues after lunch.
This morning Michelle Pittman was cross examined by the defense until almost the noon break. Many points of her previous testimony were examined and probed for more detail, revealing some vast differences from her husband’s testimony. Tim Pittman had testified regarding the couples disappointed hopes of inheriting Frank's ranch. Mr. Pittman described these hopes as only arising from a vague comment or two made by Mr. Craig that they “might end up with the place” and that nothing was further discussed. It was Ms. Pittman’s testimony, however, that the Pittman’s inheritance of the ranch was Frank's specific wish. Ms. Pittman claims that Mr. Craig spoke frequently and specifically on the subject, she even offered to drive him to his attorney’s office to change his will. Such testimony from Mr. and Ms. Pittman was contradictory to both their previous statements that Mr. Craig had specifically desired for his home to be rented out, and all proceeds be used to pay electricity bills at the museum.
Another discrepancy in the dual testimonies concerned the statements made by Mr. Pittman about how intimately acquainted they were with Mr. Craig’s relatives. It was Tim Pittman’s testimony that he had been vaguely aware of some distant relatives, however he did not know their names or where they were from. Ms Pittman knew the names of nearly all of Frank’s relatives as well as where they lived and to what degree each was related to Mr. Craig. The relationship between the two families was underscored by Ms. Pittman’s testimony that one week after Mr. Craig had passed away, the Pittmans had a meeting with Mr. Craig’s relatives to discuss their suspicions and theories concerning the accident in which Mr. Craig died. Also at attendance at the meeting were Mr. and Ms. Wassum, their daughter Erin, and Jim Bennet. Ms. Pittman further testified that Mr. Craig’s relatives had continued phone contact for many months. Further detail of Ms. Pittman’s cross examination will follow with the afternoon update, as well as the testimony of John Veldhuizen, who’s testimony lasted only minute before noon break.
A continued summary of this morning's testimony includes conversation about a great number of documents written by Ms. Pittman herself regarding all of her feeling and suspicions of Doug Porter. When asked if these writings were done at the district attorney's request, Ms. Pittman explained she had prepared the papers before Doug Porter had even been arrested. Upon hearing of Doug’s arrest Ms. Pittman called the district attorney's office to volunteer as a witness. The defense attorney then went over some of Ms. Pittman’s opinions voiced in her writings. One example was Ms. Pittman’s claim that Doug worked a “Hypnotic Manipulation” on Frank. When asked in what way Doug seemed to hypnotize Mr. Craig, Ms. Pittman explained that at times Frank would be flustered or upset and then Doug would talk to Mr. Craig which seemed to calm him down.
Another excerpt form Ms. Pittman’s writings include her ongoing fear that Doug Porter was going to burn Mr. Craig’s home down with Mr. Craig still inside. When asked what reasons may have prompted these fears Ms.Pittman explained that Mr. Craig once mentioned an apprehension of his belongings being harmed by fire. Ms. Pittman was then asked if she had ever contacted the police or Mr. Craig’s relatives over these fears. She stated she had not.
Next up was John Veldhuizen, A Hickman native who had been a neighbor of Mr. Craig’s. Veldhuizen’s testimony started just before lunch and was resumed in the afternoon session. Veldhuizen’s testimony mainly revolved around two major points of contention with Doug Porter. The first involved the cutting down of an apricot tree growing right next to Mr. Craig’s home. The tree was removed after Mr. Craig had passed away, prompting Mr. Veldhuizen to confront Doug Porter in his church office. Mr. Veldhuizen recalled alerting Doug to his displeasure on the issue and warning him that “He (Doug) could use all the positive support he could get right now and he shouldn’t be cutting down trees”.
Mr. Veldhuizen’s other point of contention was in claiming that while Mr. Craig had been in a Modesto rehab facility following the 2002 car accident, Mr. Craig asked him to drive out to the sight of the museum project to see if the foundation had been started. It was Veldhuizens testimony that Doug had told Mr. Craig work on the foundation had begun. Veldhuizen then told of how he visited the construction sight many times over the next few months and reported back to Mr. Craig that no foundation had been poured. Each time Veldhuizen reported to Mr. Craig on the lack of progress he testified he also repeated that Mr. Craig could change his power of attorney when ever he wanted to. Veldhuizen testified this comment always brought a speedy change of subject by Mr. Craig.
Velduizen’s testimony also supplied more details about the “meetings” held by Hickman locals, at which they discussed their feeling or thoughts about Doug Porter. Veldhuizen recalled being at the same gathering Ms. Pittman had testified about at the Wassum home. Veldhuizen estimated their to be near a dozen local folk at the gathering. When asked if the Pittmans or any of Mr. Craig’s relatives were in attendance he testified that they were not.
Tony Silveira was the next witness. Mr. Silveira recounted a single conversation during his testimony. He recalled as he and Doug had passed on the street asking how the museum plans were going. Silviera recalled Doug responding that their probably wouldn’t be a museum. Mr. Silveira then recalled Doug explaining that he didn’t think they (the museum) could compete with another museum being built in the area. When asked, Silveria could not recall if Doug made any reference to the large agricultural center being built on Crows Landing road in Modesto.
The last witness of the day was Jennifer Stine, the owner of Waterford Farm Supply. Ms. Stine acknowledged having a CVMA charge account at her hardware store, and then was led through invoices for the better part of an hour. No conclusion was made nor any accusation made concerning the purchases on the invoices.
Monday’s testimony is expected to begin with John Wassum
In this morning's continuing cross-examination, Tim Pittman was caught with his “pants on fire.” The defense was able to completely obliterate Pittman’s credibility as previous testimony was shown to contain numerous half-truths and one or two blatant falsehoods.
Pittman had previously testified that Mr. Craig was angry that Doug had rearranged the furniture at his house. Today however, he reluctantly noted that the previous state of the home was such that it would have been completely impassable to the wheelchair Mr. Craig required when he was brought home from the hospital by Doug.
Yesterday Pittman told the court that it was he who had provided a medical bed for Mr. Craig. Today we discovered he had failed to mention that Doug had also provided a hospital bed for Frank. Pittman could not remember which bed was there first.
Such inconsistencies became the hallmark of Pittman’s testimony. More serious questions were raised, however, concerning the veracity of his statements when it was revealed that his prior testimony concerning Mr. Craig’s desire to “pull the plug” on Doug and hire someone else to complete the project, was never a part of his original statements to police, investigators or the District Attorneys office. Pittman argued that these statements had been omitted because he had recollected them only yesterday, concerning what was said back in 2004.
At that point Pittman’s exact statements from a 2007 sworn deposition were read back to him by defense attorney Kirk McAllister. In that sworn statement, when asked directly if he had ever had a conversation with Mr. Craig concerning whether he desired to change the terms of his trust and remove Doug Porter, his answer was, “No, he said nothing specific, only that he was impatient for the project to progress.” A second question was then read from his sworn testimony at the time. “Did you ever hear Frank say he wanted to cut Doug out of the project?” Pittman replied, “No.” It was revealed that the motivation for Pittman’s testimony may have been as a result of his confessed disappointment stemming from his hopes of inheriting Mr. Craig’s twenty acre ranch himself. Michelle Pittman, the wife of Tim Pittman, took the stand before lunch and described for the court how close she and her husband had quickly become to Frank and described for the court how Frank’s house was so cluttered with items that there was only a path through it all. This last part also gave additional credence to the fact that it was necessary for Doug to rearrange some of the furnishings in the house before he brought Frank home in his wheelchair.
It was day in court completely filled with Pittman testimony. This afternoon’s session was completely taken up by the testimony of Michelle Pittman, the wife of the previous witness Tim Pittman. Ms. Pittman’s testimony agreed with all her husband's prior assertions of their selfless generosity and kindness to Mr. Craig. However the couple’s testimony differed some what on the subject of Doug Porter. Mr. Pittman who had relatively little to say about Doug was sharply contrasted by his wife, whose testimony was punctuated with bitter complaints about Mr. Craig’s friend and co-trustee.
Ms. Pittman’s began with claims similar to her husbands that the pair had gone each and every day to Frank Craig’s home between 2002 and 2004. Ms. Pittman went on to embellish this testimony by adding that when she was off track (on break) from the Ceres school were she is employed, she would spend the entire day at Mr. Craig’s home not just the evenings that were customary on work days. Ms. Pittman claimed to be a very close confidant of Mr. Craig. Every subject that was broached by both prosecuting and defense attorneys brought to Ms. Pittman’s mind a verbatim quote from Mr. Craig on how dissatisfied or angry Craig was with Doug Porter. Mr. Craig’s alleged hard feelings toward Doug would be understandable if Ms. Pittman’s assertions are true that there was nothing to be done for Mr. Craig that she and her husband did not do themselves.
Ms. Pittman when asked had described Mr. Craig’s home before the 2002 accident as so full of clutter that she could not even find a place to sit down; however she echoed her husband’s testimony that Mr. Craig was outraged that Doug had stored some of these items in spare rooms after his home coming from a rehab hospital. Mr. Craig’s feelings of outrage may have seemed some what muted to the jury as Ms. Pittman later used the same sentiment to describe Mr. Craig’s feeling about the price of a hot dog at the county fair.
One of Ms. Pittman’s many contentions with Doug Porter was over the fact that she was dissatisfied with the care givers he had hired to care for Frank. This she claims was the reason she and Mr. Pittman had devoted themselves to a regime of daily care for the elderly man. Ms. Pittman did admit that Frank had several surgeries followed by stays in rehabilitation hospitals prior to 2002; however these periods of convalescence did not excite any of the couple’s feelings of concern. It was Ms. Pittman’s testimony that during prior hospital stays they had not visited Mr. Craig in the hospital, nor had they cared for him at his home. Ms. Pittman claims it was a sunburn Mr. Craig had received that convinced her that it was necessary to disrupt her daily routine and virtually give up all time with her then young children and devote her self to Mr. Craig’s care.
Another of Ms. Pittman’s vexations concerning Doug Porter was the fact that after Mr. Craig passed away his 20 acre ranch was sold to some nearby neighbors who grow nursery stock. Ms. Pittman's problem with this was that Mr. Craig didn’t approve of this use of land. She went on to explain that the young trees were grown in containers and not directly in the ground so clearly selling these neighbors Mr. Craig’s former ranch was a grave transgression.
Cross examination of Ms. Pittman had barely begun when afternoon testimony ended. Defense attorney Kirk McAllister was able to make some inroads with the few minutes he had when he questioned her about previous statements she had made stating that Mr. Craig was completely against the church having services in the new community center he planned to build and in no way wanted the church to benefit from the funds he donated. These allegations were seemingly completely contradicted by a news clipping that hung on a wall in Frank’s home. The newspaper clipping in reference was an article from the Waterford News that described the combination museum/church project. The prominently displayed article showed a diagram of the museum project along with a diagram of a new church sanctuary/community center The defense attorney continued by having Ms. Pittman read quotes from the article detailing the churches involvement. She stood steadfastly by her prior statements but had no answer as to why Mr. Craig continued to proudly display the article if, as she claimed, it boar no resemblance to his wishes.
Ms. Pittman’s testimony will resume tomorrow morning.
The trial picked back up today with the continuing testimony of Gary Kuhlman, Former Hickman church elder and associate pastor. As Kuhlman began his second day of testimony his recollections of previous topics were refreshed by again reading over the minutes of the elders meetings, as most questions pertained to things said in these meetings. The first section of minutes to be discussed was from a meeting when Frank Craig’s funeral had been discussed as well as Doug Porter's emotional and physical state. Kuhlman then went on to describe the events he witnessed at the scene of the 2004 accident in which Mr. Craig passed away. Kuhlman who had gone to comfort his friend and pastor, described Doug after the accident as being physically and emotionally exhausted, and distraught. Mr. Kuhlman then drove Doug to identify Mr. Craig’s body, and testified that Doug was quite distraught and grieved.
As testimony continued Kuhlman gave an account of visits he had had with Mr. Craig after the 2002 accident. Kuhlman had initially gone to the hospital to see Mr. Craig in the days after the accident but was unable to speak with him because, as Kuhlman testified, Frank was not conscious or responsive at that time. He then went to visit Mr. Craig some weeks later at his home to convey his sympathies. Kuhlman stayed and visited with Frank for some time. Kuhlman noted the visit went well, with the exception of some objection by Mr. Craig when the topic of Kuhlman’s German ancestry wove its way in to conversation. As a WWII veteran, Mr. Craig apparently still held some reservations about fraternization, but was willing to make an exception in Kuhlman’s case. Kuhlman returned again on a later date to check on how Mr. Craig was feeling and visit with him.
At this point Kuhlman’s attention was called once again to the minutes of meetings held by the elder board of Hickman church. Several different meetings were looked at from early 2000 to late 2001. All involving a Central Valley Museum of Agriculture employee, James Ten Napel. Ten Napel’s success, or lack there of, in fund raising for the museum project was discussed frequently throughout the time frame stated, which resulted in Ten Napel’s termination for failing to raise a single cent.
Also Discussed was a comment alleged to have been made by Doug concerning Mr. Craig “being around”. When asked, Kuhlman recalled other such off-the-wall statements made by Doug in elder meetings. One example was Doug setting church policy on not paying ransom if he were to be kidnapped. This comment was made before Doug, Kuhlman, and others were set to leave on a missions trip to South America. Kuhlman implied that such comments made by Porter were meant tongue in cheek.
Although Kuhlman's testimony covered the same events as Randy Bergman's previous testimony, Kuhlman's recollection provided a more accurate prospective to events as they actually occured.
The first witness of the afternoon session took the stand for no longer than five minutes. Richard Boyer was subpoenaed to confirm that he did a $400.00 pluming job at Aaron Porters house, which seems irrelevant in light of Mahlon Ford’s previous testimony concerning the terms of the trust.
The second witness was Lonnie Ashlock, who, similar to Mr. Boyer, testified only briefly. He stated that he had at one time rented office space behind the church office and that he and Doug used to meet to discuss progress on the museum. Neither Mr. Boyer nor Mr. Ashlock was cross-examined by the defense. The third witness occupied the stand for the better part of the afternoon. Tim Pittman of Ceres testified for well over an hour, however his testimony consisted mainly of his own good deeds and selflessness and rarely did anything concerning Doug Porter’s case even come up.
Pittman went on at length about how he and his wife cared for Frank Craig after the 2002 accident that left him wheelchair bound. It was Pittman’s testimony that seven days a week for two years straight he and his wife Michelle cared for Mr. Craig. Cooking his meals each night after work, feeding him, bathing him, and changing his diapers. The few points of Pittman’s testimony that did concern the case were when he recalled Frank coming home from the rehabilitation center to his Hickman ranch. Pittman testified that Mr. Craig was angry that numerous household items had been moved in to spare rooms or stored in one of Mr. Craig’s barns. At another point in his narrative Pittman testified that Frank complained of receiving no bills at all, solely junk mail. Pittman also testified that Frank Craig had made decrees that none of his property be sold after his death. Craig, Pittman asserts, preferred his home and rental homes to be rented out and the proceeds be used to pay the electric bill at the future museum. Pittman also added Frank had been dissatisfied with the lack of progress on the museum and wanted to pull the plug on Porter.
On cross-examination Pittman admitted when questioned that Mr. Craig had so many items in his house and around his property that his home owners insurance dropped him. This made it easer to understand why furniture would have been moved to storage for Mr. Craig’s home coming in a wheelchair. Pittman, when asked, testified that Mr. Craig was not a generous man; however upon further inquiry this was contradicted when Pittman was asked about a $5,000.00 loan to Pitman’s older son, which Pittman claims was not to be repaid should anything happen to Mr. Craig. The Pittman’s further benefited from Mr. Craig’s generosity in the form of many costly items from his estate following the 2004 accident in which Mr. Craig passed away. Though not formally in writing Pittman informed Doug Porter that Frank had meant for he and his wife to inherit several items including; a tractor, a mint condition El Comino, an armoire, and an antique sewing machine. (It was not discussed in the day's testimony, however in the preliminary trial investigators testified that immediately following Mr. Craig’s death Pittman locked himself in Craig’s house and came out with cash and guns that apparently Pittman also felt were meant for he and his wife.) Concerns were raised for the welfare of the Pittman’s younger son, who was at the time only twelve years old, due to the amount of time that Pittman claimed to spend with Craig. Pittman originally testified that his young son was left in the care of his grand parents each night until 9 PM for the two years he and his wife cared for Mr. Craig. Later Pittman recalled he occasionally brought his son along, but admitted Mr. Craig was not fond of children. Though his care for his friend was moving, Pittman did recall that full time care givers were living in the home with Mr. Craig.
Mr. Pittman’s testimony will continue tomorrow morning.
This morning’s testimony began with two quick witnesses, Sue Juarez and Kent Hancock. Ms. Juarez, who took the stand
only for a moment, simply affirmed that as an account clerk for the county she had record of a C&P investment property
purchased on I street in Hickman. The defense had no cross examination.
Mr. Hancock, a car salesman, who was seemingly called solely to verify that he had sold Frank Craig a GMC Sonoma and in
turn taken an older truck on to his lot to be sold on consignment for Mr. Craig. Though he testified that he rarely
took cars on consignment he had done so because of his friendship with Doug Porter.
The largest portion of the day was taken up with the testimony of one time Hickman church elder Randy Bergman. Assistant district attorney John Mayne led Bergman through a line of seemingly well-rehearsed questions involving accusations, confessions and confrontations. Bergman told his version of a 2000 Elder meeting where Bergman claims the Hickman church elders confronted Doug about money taken out of church accounts for his personal use. Bergman went on to say Doug confessed to the alleged misuse, so he was pardoned and sent out with a letter to Mr. Craig to explained the whole thing as a misunderstanding in bookkeeping.
Cross examination of the same meeting however revealed far different motivations for the actions of all. When asked in what way Doug had misspent the sum of $15,000 in question Mr. Bergman explained it was spent in three different checks, one to Aaron Porter, one to Doug Porter and one to Frank Craig himself. Bergman then acknowledged that Doug had Frank’s permission and approval for these expenditures. The money had been misspent; Bergman was reluctant to explain, because though it had been donated by Frank Craig for a museum project the church felt all funds were solely in their control regardless of how Frank wanted to spend the money.
Bergman also gave another interesting account of the way he remembered a comment made by Doug at an April 2004 elder’s meeting. He thought he recalled Doug saying at the close of the meeting when asked how the museum project was coming along, "It will be easier when Frank is dead". Upon cross examination it was explained that this comment was not perceived as a threat by any in the room and was taken as a light hearted, if somewhat inappropriate statement in reference to earlier admonitions by the elders that he may have taken on too many projects with caring for Frank, coaching wrestling, pastoral duties and Mexico missions trips.
The statement came to light when Bergman recalled it years later and called the D.A. of his own volition hoping it might be helpful in the case against his onetime pastor and friend.
The same event was remembered somewhat differently by Gary Kuhlman, who was next to testify. Kuhlman who is also a former Elder from Hickman Church recalled the wording of the statement made by Doug Porter in April 2004 to be more along the lines of “things being easier if Frank were not around.” Mr. Kuhlman, who responded “don’t go there, let’s not even joke about something like that” agreed with previous testimony that the comment may have been off-the wall, and was by no means perceived as serious or a threat. Mr. Kulhman’s testimony will continue on Wednesday morning.
This morning’s proceedings included testimony given by three witnesses, Lyle Hensely, his daughter Karen Dooley, and his son Tim Hensely. All three family members run the Hensely Paving Company that was hired by Doug Porter for two separate projects. The first was to pave the driveway at Doug’s home in 2002, the second was to cut and pave two road ways from 'I' street in Hickman to the museum sight as well as paving parking lots, compacting, grading and prep work for the building's foundation.
The first to testify was Mr. Lyle Hensely who stated he had information about the driveway paving at Doug’s house, explaining that his son Tim had bid and completed that job and he was not involved. Mr. Hensely was able to supply many details about the projects done on the Agricultural Museum property in 2003. Hensely showed many site maps and diagrams detailing numerous projects such as grading and soil compaction, installation of base rock, and extensive paving. Hensley also recalled first hearing about the museum project from Doug himself as he excitedly shared plans and drawings of the future museum with many Hickman residents at a local neighborhood watch meeting.
Next to testify was Mr. Hensley’s son, Tim Hensely who was first questioned by the prosecution about the cost of the 2000 project at Doug’s home. Tim recalled the final bill came to $ 29,938.00 but the details of the payment were handled by his sister Karen, the company bookkeeper. When questioned by the defense Hensley’s recollections matched his father's on details concerning all museum projects, and adding that the job was bid in 2002 but was not started until 2003 due to winter weather, further explaining that delays of this nature are very common to paving work.
The final witness called before lunch was Karen Dooley, the daughter of Lyle Hensley who also serves at the company's secretary and bookkeeper. Ms. Dooley testified concerning the paving of Doug’s driveway, that although a $5,000.00 down payment was initially paid with a check from the joint trust account shared by Frank Craig and Doug, the remaining amount of $24,808 was paid in payments by checks from Doug Porter's personal checking account.
This afternoon's testimony consisted of a rapid cycle of eight witnesses, some of whom answered no more than two or three questions before being excused.
The first three witnesses of the afternoon were called to confirm having received checks written from a CVMA (Central Valley Museum of Agriculture) account for various transactions. The prosecution persisted in this line of testimony despite the fact that Mahlon Ford, Frank Craig’s trust attorney, had previously explained that such expenditures were within the scope of Doug’s authority as co-trustee.
Next, the afternoon’s testimony took a sad turn when the district attorney paraded a shackled man in a prison jumpsuit before the jury. The man identified himself as Milton Bridges, the father of one of Doug’s former wrestlers. The only purpose for Mr. Bridges’ testimony was seemingly to state that he had at one time had his name on a post office box Doug and Frank had used.
Upon cross examination Bridges was allowed to explain he had been trying for some time to get his youngest son into Hughson High School. Bridges explained that while his son had previously been at a school in another district, they were currently living in the Hughson High district. He said that although they technically had no “permanent residence” he and his son were living in his truck, which he parked behind his place of employment in Hickman. While they looked for a residence, Bridges testified that Doug had put his name on the P.O. Box in order to supply a place for his son’s report cards to be sent. Bridges also testified in response to questioning that Doug did not seek the family out to come in to his district but rather he had learned of Doug through reputation in the wrestling community. Bridges further explained that although he had made some bad choices in his life, he wanted a better life for his son, and hoped he could benefit from the positive influence of Doug’s coaching. At this point prosecution attorney John Mayne switched the line of questioning from Doug Porter’s case and instead ran through an itemized list of Mr. Bridges convictions, forcing him to respond to each with a yes or no answer as to his guilt. At this point Mr. Bridges objected, asking if he had been transported all the way from Vacaville just to have his name drug through the mud.
After Mr. Bridges was led away, the prosecution called their own investigator, Mike Hermosa, to the stand in an attempt to contradict Mr. Bridges’ testimony. Mr. Hermosa recalled some details of Mr. Bridges’ account to him of the history somewhat differently from an interview they had over a year ago. However it did seem Mr. Hermosa was sketchy on most of the details he was called to refute, and it was further revealed he had neither recorded, nor taken notes on the interview, and was left with little more than his general impressions.
The morning session of court ended with no major point or conclusion being made by either side. All witnesses called thus far are testifying by subpoena of the District Attorney. We are four days into the trial and it is still unclear to us how this case has ever made it this far.
The first testimony of the morning was given by Dr. Cimino, a trauma surgeon in the ER who was on duty the afternoon of the 2002 accident. While the doctor testified that he had no recollection of this case, he reviewed charts and notes in order to give the court a recitation of fractures received by Mr. Craig. The injuries, though numerous and serious to an elderly person, were not thought to be out of the ordinary in a collision. The doctor also testified that Mr. Craig had been made comfortable by administering pain killers such as morphine and that for several days subsequent to the accident Craig would not have been capable of carrying on a conversation or answering questions because of the medication.
The second witness of the morning was Carol Stevens, an insurance investigator who interviewed Doug in the weeks following the 2002 accident. Ms. Stevens testified to meeting with Doug and discussing the events of the accident. Doug, she said, had been out quite late the night before visiting someone at the hospital and was very tired the day of the accident. Doug then explained to her that he had momentarily closed his eyes and rubbed them while driving, when he opened them he was slightly off course and corrected. He then saw a white car coming around the bend slightly over the double yellow line and he veered right on to the shoulder of the road heading between two trees into a field. Upon veering off the road the truck struck a 12 to 16 inch dirt birm altering the truck’s course and sending it into the tree. As Ms. Stevens continued to go over the interview report, she recounted all that Doug had told her about the events after the accident. Doug was temporarily knocked unconscious by the air bag and upon regaining consciousness he went around to Mr. Craig’s side of the car and tried to open the passenger’s side door, which had been buckled by the collision. With a burst of adrenaline he jerked the door open, falling backward to the ground in the process. At that point he had tried to call 911 but had no cellular service in the rural area. When a passing motorist stopped to help, Doug asked them to go to the nearby farm house to call 911. At the date of the interview with Doug, Ms. Stevens recalled seeing marks or injuries on his face.
At this point court broke for lunch. Neither witness testified to any suspicion of circumstances or details, and all of Doug’s quotes from the insurance investigators interview agree with facts previously stated by witnesses and experts.
In the afternoon session Carol Stevens resumed her testimony on the subject of the insurance investigation of the 2002 auto accident. Ms. Stevens testified that Doug’s manner was cooperative and he seemed to forthrightly answer all questions. Ms. Stevens then moved on to her interview with Frank Craig, describing him as crotchety, grouchy, and unpleasant. Ms. Stevens stated that Mr. Craig refused consent to tape record the interview, and made clear his distrust of insurance companies and lawyers. During the interview Mr. Craig made the statement, “I hope somebody has the money to pay for all this.” When asked about the context of the question, Ms. Stevens replied that it was in reference to a conversation about his HMO and the costs of his medical expenses.
When Ms. Stevens asked Frank to sign documentation as to the extent of his injuries, he waived her off, told her his right arm hurt and told her to contact Doug Porter because he had power of attorney and would sign for him.
The next to testify was Robert Oates, an employee of Unigard Insurance, Doug’s insurance company. He testified that the vehicle was totaled. Unigard issued four checks, one to the bank for the remaining balance of the Tundra, one to Doug for the equity he had in the truck, and two checks made out to Frank Craig for medical expenses, one for five-thousand and one for twenty-five thousand dollars. Oates testified that Doug’s insurance policy allowed for up to $250,000 for compensation for bodily injuries and Doug as co-trustee with Frank, could have chosen to benefit from the maximum eligibility, but never sought greater monetary benefit. (This was an obvious contradiction of the portrayal by the DA of Doug’s character.) Mr. Oates also reported talking to Doug more than once about Frank’s recovery and progress and about Porter’s plans to care for Frank after his discharge from the hospital. Porter discussed bringing him home to his own house to care for him if needed or to a nearby assisted living facility. He said he eventually settled on arranging for a caregiver to live with Frank in his own home.
At the close of the afternoon session, one of the jurors wrote a note to the DA by way of the bailiff who asked the question, “If Doug had asked for more money from the insurance company, would they have paid it?” Mr. Oates answered, “ Yes, but Mr. Porter had only asked for compensation in the amount of Mr. Craig’s medical expenses.”
This morning's session focused on Doug and Frank's 2002 auto accident. The first witness for the prosecution was Mr. Zanker. Zanker is a LaGrange resident who lives near the the 2002 accident site. Zanker recalled hearing the sounds of the collision and seeing the first responders arrive, but little else was remembered due to the nearly six years since the accident. On cross examination McAllister showed good reason for Zanker's memory to be so hazy. Zanker testified to having knowledge of over twenty crashes at the same blind corner in the last twenty years he has lived at that location. McAllister also showed another significant reason that Zanker may not recall the details of the accident is because he didn't think he would need to since no law enforcement or authorities have spoke to or questioned him regarding the accident until just one month ago
The second witness, Officer Green, testifed that he did find the accident suspicious in his opinion. However, he failed to explain why he was not motivated to follow up his suspicions with any investigation. The prosecutions line of questions with Officer Green was riddled with objections from McAllister, who protested that the prosecution was leading the witness. Cross examination of Officer Green will take place following the lunch break.
The afternoon session continued with Officer Green’s testimony and assistant district attorney John Baker asking questions. Baker asked Green about skid marks or breaking at the scene and Green said that based on the dirt tire track there had been steering input. When Officer Green had asked about that, Doug said he was trying to steer in between the two trees. Green was then asked if there was anything else he could remember about the inside of the vehicle or anything about the seatbelts. He said the seatbelt on the drivers side had showed stretching and fibers. He was asked about the passenger side seatbelt and he said there was no sign that the seatbelt had been used and that the seatbelt was locked. A picture was also shown of the driver side airbag deployed. Green was asked about the passenger side airbag, he said it was turned off. McAllister then cross-examined Green, asking about the accident scene and if he talked to anyone at the scene, but he could not recall. He was again asked about the seatbelt and the physical appearance of it. He had said the seatbelt was locked. McAllister asked about the two alternative ways the seat belt can be locked. It can be locked by the innursal reel or it can be meshed in the system and the officer confirmed that it can be locked whether it’s been in an accident or not. Then Green was asked about Porter and where he was when he first talked to him. Green said that Doug was strapped to a backboard and was being asked questions by the medical personnel. Green stated he had a brief conversation with Doug.
Doug injuries had been attended to at Oak Valley Hospital and he then went to Memorial Hospital to see how Frank was. That’s when Green claimed he had a conversation with Doug and then Frank. Officer Green did not record any conversations with Doug and said he had written on a notepad which is no longer around. He did not recall any quotes in his report about what Doug was telling him. McAllister then had Green confirm that the "factual" computer diagram he was using was not an accurate depiction of the accident scene when compared to the photos of the accident scene.
When questioned about injuries to Doug, Green couldn’t recall if Doug was in pain, McAllister showed him the preliminary exam report which showed signs of Doug being injured and in pain. Green barely remembered the exam.
Officer Green confirmed that there were no pictures taken at the time of the accident and that all of the pictures were taken by an insurance agent at another time. Green was asked if the tire tread on the ground matched the tread on the tires. He admitted he could not say because of the debris on the ground. He was then asked if he went back to the scene after he had his suspicions. He said “ No” he hadn’t gone back to the scene until three weeks ago.
In the redirect, Baker asked about the accident scene again. Green mentioned some parts he remembers and some parts he doesn't. McAllister then asked if it was normal practice that he take pictures of accidents and Green replied “Yes.” He said notes and pictures are helpful. He said this despite the fact that he did not keep notes on the accident or take any pictures.
Next on the stand was trout farmer, Steve Silva who was question regarding a delivery of trout that he had taken to La Grange. His testimony basically said he doesn't remember any details. Silva was followed by Timmy Goodson, another trout farm employee. Goodson also testified that he didn't remember Doug or the check used to pay for delivery
Well, today was brief. We were there at 10:00 am and Doug was there ready for court however, two of the jurors were ill today so court has been postponed until Wednesday June 4th at 10:00 am (since tuesdays are not normally scheduled days for our case).
Cathy Bergman’s testimony continued today covering financial expenditures as well as the circumstances under which she quit her job as Hickman Church’s secretary and bookkeeper.
The prosecution questioned her regarding many of the checks written out of Craig’s accounts and Bergman was able to supply an explanation for nearly all of them.
Reasons for Bergman’s employment at Hickman Community Church coming to an end were less clear. The prosecution implied Bergman was forced out of her position the day after meeting with an investigator about Doug Porter’s case. This assertion was called in to question by Bergman’s own testimony that she herself quit and was not fired by then pastor Aaron Porter with whom she was having on going personality and ministry conflicts.
Next to take the stand was Mahlon Ford, the trust attorney selected by Frank Craig to establish the museum trust. Ford's Testimony stated that he had met Frank Craig when he was referred to him by an attorney in the Bay Area early in 1999. Ford explained the trust and what assets were assigned to it and explained that Frank wanted his assets to go into the museum. The 1995 trust was amended because James Craig, Frank’s brother and the prior beneficiary had passed away. Mr. Ford explained the roles as executor, trustee as well as the various powers of attorney stipulated in the trust. McAllister had Mr. Ford clarify that Frank came in at one point with the specific intent to take his sisters off his will. “They were specifically disinherited” Ford said. Ford described Frank as being gruff, unwilling to listen to his advise and stubborn. When Ford explained to Craig that if he named the church as the beneficiary of his trust, they would be under no obligation to build the museum. He said that he tried to change Frank’s mind for two hours to no avail. Craig’s statement to Ford was “I don’t want to do it your way, I want to do it my way.”
Ford testified that Craig not only did not exhibit the characteristics of someone who would have been easy to influence, but that he “was exactly the opposite.” He further explained that the powers of attorney Frank designated to Doug were to provide the discretion to buy, sell, gift, withdrawal or trade in whatever way he saw fit, including the ability to withdraw for himself a reasonable fee. When asked what that amount should be, Ford stated that it would be difficult to determine what a reasonable fee would be.
The final witness of the day was Nancy Stout a volunteer firefighter/E.M.T. who was a first responder on the scene at the 2002 accident. Stout testified that she had responded to several accidents at the ‘S’ bend on Lake Rd. near La Grange. As she arrived on scene she almost immediately noticed Doug Porter was at Frank’s side on the passenger side of the vehicle. However Porter appeared to be disoriented, which she stated was common due to collision impact and emotional distress. When Stout asked Doug what caused the collision she recalled Porter saying he wasn’t sure and may have fallen asleep momentarily. Stout’s testimony closed by explaining that she had become a witness in the Doug Porter case by taking it upon herself to call the sheriffs department, as well as the DA when an article about Porter and Craig was published in the Modesto Bee in 2004 (two years later) in which the details of the accident didn’t reconcile with her memories.
The Prosecution led off the trial of Doug Porter with deputy district attorney, John Mayne taking the jury through a slightly confusing and some times disjointed opening statement. Mayne painted a one dimensional picture of Frank Craig, describing him simply as a man who wanted to build a museum. Although the prosecution brought up the financial losses in the museum account, he failed to give an explanation as to where Porter had spent the money.
Financial talk was followed by an overview of the two accidents Doug Porter and Frank Craig were involved in over a two year period. Regarding the first accident, it was mentioned that the air bag on the passenger (Frank’s) side had been switched off and that Porter had his seat belt fastened but Craig was not wearing his.
He then showed a diagram of the direction he was traveling in the first accident and where he hit the tree. He brought up that Doug was confused about how the accident happened. He brought up that Doug said he thought he had gotten sleepy and that a car appeared to have crossed over into his lane on the sharp turn. Mayne talked about Frank’s injuries from the accident and how it had left him disabled. Mayne claims that following two years of recuperation Frank told his nephew Henry ‘Bud’ Whitney that he planned to take control of his life.
The DA then came to the last point of his opening statements by discussing the second accident. Mayne pointed out that the truck traveled 100 yards after hitting some rocks on the canal bank and veering into the water.
Defense Attorney Kirk McAllister’s opening statement was in sharp contrast to that of the prosecution, where Mayne's opening was vague; McAllister’s opening statement was full of detail and information.
McAllister began with a more, well rounded view of who Frank Craig was, his personality and interests. Craig was described as a cantankerous but generous man who enjoyed following local sports and collecting unusual old items. McAllister showed many slides of trips where Porter and Craig had traveled together and detailed how the two had known each other for many years and explained how Porter had worked on his ranch as a boy and how Craig had followed Porter’s wrestling and coaching career.
McAllister then explained that Craig had contacted an attorney, Mahlon Ford, twice by himself and asked that his sisters be removed from his will. Porter was not with him and Craig was adamant about his wishes.
It was then that McAllister went into much greater detail regarding how the financial expenditures were made. He used enlarged detailed pie charts and graphs to show that a majority of the funds had been expended on land purchased for the museum. Funds were also spent for plans drawn up by an agricultural firm for the clearing of the property, the installation of sprinklers and drive way and parking lot paving. Monies were also spent on a well, an enlarged septic system, a ball field and the laser leveling of the site. The charts also identified that approximately $300,000 had been lost when the stock market plummeted in 2001. A fundraiser, James Tenaple, was then hired to procure funds but his efforts proved completely fruitless. Tenaple was paid over $36,000 but, “not a cent was raised”. McAllister's presentation answered all of the questions of accounting raised by the prosecution.
Next McAllister discussed the auto accidents. In the first accident it was explained that the passenger’s side air bag had been manually switched off by Porter’s daughter-in-law as a child safety feature some days earlier because Porter had taken his young grand-daughter on a fishing trip. The fact that Frank was not wearing his seat belt was not unusual as it was the testimony of many who knew him that he hated seatbelts and rarely wore them.
Regarding the second accident McAllister detailed how Porter had taken Craig on a trip to run errands when he was distracted by Craig as he was driving. Mr. Craig was attempting to show Doug a rebate check when Doug turned his attention toward Craig. the pickup they were riding in hit some rocks on the canal bank road and the vehicle plunged into the canal. As the pick-up sank beneath the water, Porter swam to try to rescue Frank. He held onto Frank with one arm and with the other he swam toward the pilings near the bank. Porter then got help from a nearby farm worker to pull Mr. Craig the rest of the way out of the canal and then Doug performed CPR until rescue workers arrived. McAllister pointed out these are not the action of a murderer.
McAllister then detailed the difficulties Porter encountered as he continued to try to build the museum. Permits were held up by planning commission red tape including over 37 conditions needed to approve progress. McAllister showed that when it became clear they lacked sufficient funds for the original plans. Porter persevered toward other potential ideas. The Old Rowe School House; one of the oldest historical buildings in Hickman was proposed by Porter as an option to move onto the site for the museum. They got as far as having the chimney and porch removed in preparation for the move, at which time Mr. Craig’s relatives brought litigation against Doug Porter bringing the project to a standstill. Hickman Church with Doug no longer the pastor, decided it was not interested in pursuing the project. At that point McAllister said, “nothing more could be done, but it was not for lack of trying by Mr. Porter.”
The day ended with testimony given by former Hickman Community Church bookkeeper Cathy Bergman. The majority of the questions asked of Mrs. Bergman were difficult for her to recall given the fact that so many years have past. Mrs. Bergman will finish her testimony tomorrow along with Mahlon Ford and two other witnesses.