More to come throughout the rest of the day and trial. Check back with WCPO.com, KyPost.com and 9News.
Reporter Jessica Noll gives you the minute-by-minute report of the Cheryl McCafferty murder trial.
Forensic Scientist Finishes Day 5: 3:06 p.m.
The man behind trace evidence takes his turn on the witness stand Friday. With 29 years of experience under his belt Michael Trimpe, with salt and pepper hair and wearing a charcoal gray suit, white shirt completed by a blue patterned tie, walks in testifies that he is a forensic scientist for Hamilton County. He says that he uses a microscope to test and analyze hair, fibers, soil and gunshot residue (GSR). Trimpe explains for the jury that GSR is when there is a heated reaction in the gunfire that crates residue or particles to fly out like an invisible cloud and then land on anything in a close proximity—typically within three feet, he says. He tells the jury that he was the person who examined four GSR tests that were taken on the McCaffertys: Molly, Patrick, Cheryl and Bob. And while they were all positive readings, he says that he cannot tell the jury how the GSR landed on them. He says that there are different ways to obtain those particles onto you. Positive results due to: He reads to the jury from his July 10, 2007 report. It states that positive elements were found on all four McCaffertys. Trimpe then shows the jury and the courtroom, by example of pulling out a GSR test, how a test is taken and what a "lifter" is. The "lifter" is the tacky bottom of the test that is placed on the surface being tested, then it is placed back into a vile. He says that he uses that tacky end and analyzes it to find the particles from GSR. Fleckinger asks the witness to explain transference. He says, if somebody touches something with primary residue on it they will get residue on their hand as well. However, he says, you can also wipe off particles if the item with the residue is moved. He tells the jury that Bob’s hands were tested and that the left hand had nothing on it. He confirms that he tells police officers to "try to avoid bloody and soiled areas." Which is what the officers testified earlier in doing because Bob’s left hand was in a pool of blood and it needed to dry before testing. The prosecution asks if the hand was exposed at the time of a gunshot could they have the residue on their hand, but not know if that hand fired the gun? The witness confirms this theory. She questions Trimpe about bagging hands to preserve evidence for a GSR test. And he says, "bagging hands is good, if can’t collect samples right away, it shows that ‘hey these are important and don’t touch.’" He admits that bagging can, however, rub off particles as well. He tells cops that he trains cops to use their best judgement. Mungo begins his cross-examination at 3:32 p.m. by asking Trimpe about Bob’s GSR testing. The witness says that the victim’s right hand tested positive for elements in GSR; however, after his analysis he says that he concluded that the left had nothing on it. It came out "null" because no test had been done on Bob’s left hand. He then asks the witness whether or not it was true that bagging would stop transference to other body parts. With his questioning, he throws down a pad of paper on the floor and asks if there is a blanket covering this paper would it get gunshot residue on it if a gun were fired in proximity to it? As he asks, he places other pieces of papers over the pad of paper to act as a blanket covering it. The witness tells the jury that the paper would not get GSR on it, because it was covered. Fleckinger redirects to address Mungo’s last question. She holds a pen and places it under a piece of notebook paper on the podium and asks if that pen would have GSR if the blanket were moved after the GSR landed on it. He tells her and the jury that the residue particles can fall off an item "it’s possible." She confirms his testimony that if something is covered it will not initially have the particles on it. If removed it’s possible for the particles to fall. Court is dismissed for the day at 3:44 p.m., to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. Monday morning.o
Family Friend Remembers Argument: 2:46 p.m.
Fort Thomas Police Lt. Mark Dill’s blonde sister-in-law Patty Dill took the stand wearing a red sweater, black slacks with black shoes and a red purse draped over her shoulder. During her testimony, the witness, who has flipped outward from the bottom blonde hair, never makes eye contact with the defendant nor does she look in her general direction. Cheryl, however, watches her as she testifies about an argument that she had had with her husband the week prior to his murder. The witness says that she and her husband, along with five other couples, including the McCaffertys left for the weekend to take a trip on a houseboat on a Tennessee lake. She says that the group left on June 15, 2007, between 9 and 10 a.m., with plans to return on Monday. Snodgrass asks the witness, a family friend of 20 years at the time, what she remembers about that weekend. She testifies that Bob and Cheryl had gotten into a "very heated argument." And that the defendant was "very upset—getting all up in his business, yelling and screaming at him." She says that after the fight, Cheryl walked up the stairs of the boat, only to return and began yelling again, pointing her finger at him and getting close to his face. Dill remembers that Bob seemed surprised at the yelling directed toward him. The witness says that Cheryl then went to her bedroom on the boat and that she followed her to make sure that she was OK. When she got there, she says, "she said she hated him and didn’t want to live with him anymore—was going to see a divorce attorney." At that time, she says to the jury, that Bob came downstairs on the houseboat to the bedroom and then the witness confirms that she left to go to the bathroom. When she finished, she says, she stood at the top of the stairs and listened to them talk. "I heard Cheryl tell Bob she was going to a divorce attorney," she says of what she heard that day on the boat. Then she says, Bob said, "Cheryl, don’t you love me anymore?" To which she says Cheryl said, "I’m going to take half of your stuff." And she concludes that Bob finishes the conversation with, "I’m going to tell them what you stole." Dennison cross-examines the witness and confirms that she is in fact married to Ron Dill, the brother of a Fort Thomas police officer. She asks Dill what the argument stemmed from. Dill tells the jury that she heard them start to argue over a college roommate of Bob’s that Cheryl couldn’t remember that she got angry. She also says that several of the other wives, as well, Mark Dill, overheard the same argument that she did. She says that the couple argued over their daughter Molly too. She says that she heard them arguing over the way that Cheryl thought Bob handled a fight that Molly had gotten into at school. She says that Cheryl said, "You’re not supportive of your daughter." Dennison remarks that Cheryl was upset at how she perceived Bob was treating their daughter—that she was concerned. She also asks the witness if she had ever heard them argue in the 20 years that she knew them. She says no. "Yes, we were all surprised," Dill says, about the argument she had witnessed. The attorney questions Dill about how Cheryl was when she checked on her in her bedroom on the boat. She says that she was crying when she went down to see her. Dennison confirms with the witness that she only saw and heard part of the fight because she left to go to the bathroom and she admits that yes, she only saw a partial conversation. She asks Dill about the next day, "Did she tell you anything about makeup sex?" Attorneys from both sides approach the bench at this time.
Bob’s Boss Testifies: 2:30 p.m.
Bill Howes, Bob’s boss at Sage Products, Inc., walked into the courtroom wearing a navy blue suit and white shirt with a red tie. Snodgrass asks the witness to tell the jury how he knew Bob McCafferty. He tells the jury that Sage is a medical manufacturing company based out of Cary, Ill., and that Bob, which he knew personally and professionally for more than 20 years, worked under him. He testifies that Bob was the vice president of corporate accounts and worked out of a home office. He continues that Bob traveled about 50 percent of the time for work. And recalls that in June 2007, Bob traveled about eight days for work that month. Bob had missed a few meetings due to his mother’s death, Howes says. The week before his murder, he says, Bob was with him on a business trip in Orlando, Fla. He also recalls that he heard of his friend’s death from a local sales representative who called him. Defense had no questions for this witness.
Mungo Questions Computer Evidence: 2:15 p.m.
As the defense attorney greets the witness one of the male jury members chuckles. Mungo then heads to the dry-erase board and draws a graphic of a computer and the Internet. He questions, as he draws the boxes and line connecting the two, how the computer connects to the Internet and different Web sites. Prindle explains in complex detail how this occurs. To which Mungo says "slow it down—a lot of information," and the courtroom laughs. Mungo takes a sheet of white paper and places it on the floor as he tries to explain from the witness’s testimony of how the Internet files exist on the computer once they are downloaded. He then points out to the courtroom and says that there is a lot of media here. And if you go to their Web sites, how is that downloaded to the computer? Prindle explains that only data that is clicked will download to the computer. Topics, he says, can also download but it will not download the entire article if you do not click specifically on that link at the Web site. "[So] information that I have not clicked can be downloaded to my computer right?" questions Mungo to the witness. As the witness responds to his question Cheryl looks over her shoulder and out to the audience of the courtroom. The witness says to the jury that he has no idea if someone clicked on the word embezzlement, but that the Web site was pulled up on the computer at some point. "Someone, somewhere went to Internet site containing that information," he says. Mungo points out to the lawyer who has sat behind the defense table during the trial, Keith Gambrel. Gambrel stands up for everyone to see him. He says, as he points to the lawyer, if she [Cheryl] searched for an attorney then sees that he had something to do in the Bosley trial, she could’ve wanted to see what he did with that case, right? The witness says that that is a possibility, but that he cannot say. He can only tell the jury what he found in the searches on the computer. To that a "giddy up!" from Mungo and the courtroom, including Cheryl laughs.
Computer Test Reveals Google Searches: 2 p.m.
Dressed in a gray suit, blue shirt, with a gray and blue striped tie, Major Jack Prindle walks into the courtroom and takes the stand. Prindle, who totes a large black binder, tells the jury his name and that he is head of the computer forensics in the crime lab for the Boone County Sheriff’s Department. He tells the jury that it is not his job to say what information on the computer means, only to retrieve it. "Just a piece of the puzzle?" asks Snodgrass. He says yes. Prindle says that there is a quantity of evidence these days in digital form they recover and present in a "framework people can understand." There were four computers from the McCafferty household recovered for testing and put into evidence he says. The lab started with photographing the computers, taking notes, taking apart the computer and then making a copy of the hard drive. He describes in detail to the jury the difference between allocated space on a hard drive and unallocated space. Unallocated is the space on the computer that is open for use, but that will still contain some remnants of deleted files from the computer, he says. The witness through questions from Snodgrass tells the jury what he found on one of the McCaffertys’ computers. As he flips through his large black binder filled with papers, his records, he tells the jury that on June 20, 2007 there was a Google search at 9:49 a.m. for: Keith Gambrel, lawyer, Kentucky. (Gambrel was an attorney involved in the Amy Bosley murder case in 2005. Bosley was convicted of killing her husband Robert.) The next search he found, he says, was at 1:35 p.m. for: Bosley case, Campbell Co, Kentucky. At 1:36 p.m. Cincinnati.com was searched for the word: Bosley. And at 1:37 p.m. Cincinnati.com was again searched for the words: Bosley, murder, case. At 1:38 p.m. someone searched Google for: Bosley, murder. Prindle continues to tell the jury that during his investigation into the computer and the searches performed on them he also found that on June 17, at 10:55 p.m. a Google search was performed for: check-n-go. And the following day June 18, at 6:43 p.m. the same search was performed. He says that there were "several hundred" references on two of the computers regarding modeling "over a period of time," dating April through June 24, 2007. The username on those computers, he says, was Cheryl. Another word that he says was found on the hard drive was ‘embezzlement.’ He says that it was attached to a Web site referring to embezzlement, law.freeadvice.com: what is embezzlement—white-collar crime law. He testifies that it was in the unallocated space of the computer and therefore cannot identify the username who put it there.
Forensic Accountant Confirms Check Discrepancies: 1:27 p.m.
The forensic accountant, who is a security consultant and private investigator, spending 25 years with the FBI as a special agent working in white-collar crime, took the stand. He has a degree in accounting and a masters in business administration. He testifies that he was contacted to review documents in Cheryl’s case. He says that forensic accounting is looking back at financial records to see if there is evidence of a crime. He says that he examined Bob’s bank statements from December 2006 through June 2007. During the cross-examination by Deanna Dennison, the witness tells the jury that he found a checks entered into Bob’s register, confirming that the check numbers did not match the correlating amounts and payee on the checks and register, as Det. Adams testified to earlier to. The registry, he says, documented different amounts and to different payees. The dates in the registry also do not match the dates on the checks he says. Snodgrass asks the witness if when an individual takes checks out of sequence they do so to prevent the owner of the account from noticing the money is missing? He says "yes." Dennison confirms with the witness that the Commonwealth did not provide him with Cheryl’s bank statements. She gives him a copy. She asks him to tell the jury on the dates of deposited money for Jan. 25, Jan. 31, Feb. 27, March 28 and April 11. He reads the statement to the jury for those dates: He tells the defense attorney that he cannot confirm where that money came from. Snodgrass asks the witness if it’s cash or a check is it still stolen, to which he answers yes. "This is paper until you negotiate [cash] it," he confirms.
Witness: Bob Did Not Write Checks To Cheryl: 1:05 p.m.
As the prosecution calls their next witness, an older man enters the courtroom and heads toward the back row of seats. Campbell County deputy sheriff Laura Guilford directs the man to the front and Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Vanita Fleckinger says "That’s not Mr. Shipp." And the courtroom erupts into laughter as the real Richard Shipp walks through the door. A forensic document examiner for the Hamilton County Crime Lab, Shipp says that he is qualified to testify in 21 states and has done so more than 400 times over his years of experience. The witness verifies for the jury that he looked over the letter that Cheryl wrote to Bob and several greeting cards from Cheryl. He says that he was also given a 27-page description of the checks in question to examine. He says to the jury that he concluded through examination and testing that the checks from Bob’s account written out to Cheryl were not written by Bob himself. And in his opinion it was probable that Cheryl wrote them, but that he could not testify 100 percent to that. He continues that he uses the word "probably" and not definitely because he examined copies of the handwriting and not of the original documents. Shipp points out to the jury that the handwriting of Bob and Cheryl are so different because one of them puts dashes before and after the payees name on the checks.
Mungo Argues Cheryl’s Net Worth: 11:30 a.m.
Defense Attorney Frank Mungo begins his cross-examination on the witness Det. Brad Adams with a question on his timeline when arresting Cheryl for the June 25, 2007 murder of her husband Bob McCafferty. Adams confirms by answering questions of Mungo that he arrested Cheryl for the murder at 1:50 p.m.; that he applied for a search warrant of the house at 12:30 p.m.; received the search warrant at 1 p.m.; and again arrested Cheryl 50 minutes later. Mungo clarifies with the witness that he was in fact in the house for less than an hour when he placed Cheryl under arrest for murder. To which Adams says yes. The crime scene was closed at 11 p.m. on June 25, re-opened the next day June 26 when the police collected more evidence. It was closed that day at 11 p.m. Mungo asks Adams that if it’s true under Kentucky law if someone kills their spouse they "don’t receive a penny?" At first the detective says that he is not familiar with that law, but then says yes. "She can’t get a damn cent, right?" asks Mungo to the witness. "If she’s convicted," clarifies Adams. Mungo continues to tell the witness that on the 911 call she says that she shot him—"not hiding from it." At this point the attorney moves onto the finances of the couple. "We heard from that good-looking guy from Edward Jones yesterday," Mungo says to Adams, when the courtroom crowd breaks into laughter. Next he spouts numbers to the witness; saying that in the McCaffertys’ joint account there was $281,297 and split two ways is $140,648 each. Plus Cheryl had her own IRA account that had $317,794 in it. As of June 2007, Mungo says, Cheryl was worth more than $458,000. He moves over to the defense table, points at Cheryl and says "that’s how much this lady was worth on June 25, 2007," continuing with, "She had the financial means to hop a jet to Cabo." And as Mungo reads the McCaffertys’ financial information on a piece of paper in front the jury, he is visibly scratching his head. Then together, on the dry-erase board, he and the witness calculate that Cheryl’s debt to worth ration was 12 percent. Mungo asks him, so she killed her husband over credit card debt? "I think she had a different problem," Adams answers. The attorney says to the witness that Cheryl had control of her budget. Based on the 12-step letter giving partial control of her finances to Bob, Adams says that she was "attempting to" take control. But that the 12-steps contradicted itself. He elaborates that no. 5 says "I will pay my bills," and no. 6 says: Bob to control my checkbook. Mungo asks if she was apologetic in the letter, which had no date on it. The detective says yes, and that she was only angry at herself. Snodgrass redirects at 11:50 a.m. "Bob McCafferty’s dead right? There are no halves" in the couple’s finances at this point, she says. She would get it all and if not convicted she would stand to gain nearly $1 million, Snodgrass says to the witness in the form of a question. "What’s the percentage [of debt to worth ratio] if you’re stealing checks from your husband?" Snodgrass says to the witness, quickly following up with a question the defense asked earlier but did not follow up on she says. She asks what sort of "problem" did he think Cheryl had. The detective says, "I think she had a spending problem she couldn’t get a handle on." And she said in her letter that she would "do whatever it takes?" asks Snodgrass. "Did she accomplish that?" "Yes I believe she did," the witness confirms. Mungo cross-examines with "if we follow the law, she won’t get anything." And says that on the 911 call she said: "My husband tried to kill me and I shot him"—Mungo asks "That’s self-defense right?" Prosecution objects. Court breaks for lunch at 11:58 a.m.
Cell Phone Records Detailed: 11:14 a.m.
Det. Brad Adams continues his testimony when he goes over for the jury Cheryl’s cell phone records from June 25, 2007. He reads the following times and calls for the courtroom per Snodgrass’s request: 8:06 a.m.—call placed to a Boone County phone number that the detective reveals to be Cheryl’s mother Betty Gosney, lasting one minute. 8:09 a.m.—incoming call from Gosney’s cell phone, lasting three minutes. 8:12 a.m.—call placed to 911.
Cheryl’s 12-Step Program Read: 11:10 a.m.
The detective continues to read items for the jury including a 12-step program that he says he found in the blue notebook/folder. He says it disclosed her ideas to help the family financially by taking steps to curb spending. Det. Adams reads the 12 Steps that were written by Cheryl: - Give Bob credit report
- Get professional help
- Communication
- Tell parents
- "I will pay current bills—I need to feel the pain."
- Don’t come home for lunch
- Save all receipts
- Let Bob handle my checking account
- Volunteer with City Gospel Mission
- Pray a lot
- Make Bob and our future my no. 1 priority
- Tell Bob every day how grateful I am for love and support.
Snodgrass adds as the detective finishes reading the 12 steps written by the defendant "honesty was one thing she need to work on?" Defense objects.
Cheryl Wrote Letter To Bob: 11 a.m.
Det. Brad Adams reads a letter that he says Cheryl wrote to Bob regarding their finances. As he reads the letter to the jury, Cheryl cries, using tissue to catch her tears. Below are some of the exerts from the letter: "I know my world is no longer. I will do anything to save us and our family. Tell me what to do and I’ll do it. I’ve proven I can’t be trusted. I have a huge problem. I have ruined everything. You are the most wonderful human on this earth. You deserve trust and happiness, not me. I am fighting an internal war with myself not you." Within the letter she writes to Bob that he should take over her finances and control the money because she can’t be trusted. She writes to him to tell her what to do—it’s up to him—sorry—ball’s in his court—never meant to hurt him. She continues to ask for forgiveness but says she doesn’t deserve it. With this the detective says that he thinks upon his investigation that she had a real spending problem and couldn’t "get a handle on it."
Checks Don’t Match Up With Registers: 10:30 a.m.
Det. Brad Adams continues to tell the jury about the items that he recovered. He says that they recovered two checkbooks from a vehicle in the garage, as well as a checkbook and check register book from the kitchen within the house. All of the above were accounts in Cheryl’s name. Adams says that there were five entries in the register. They were check nos. 4731-4735; however, the checkbooks’ start checks in each were nos. 4766, 4845 and 4851. There were neither deposits nor any balances written into the register. "Hard to tell what’s going on there, correct?" asks Snodgrass, to which the detective agrees. The prosecution then shows the detective exhibit no. 111, which includes Bob’s checking account register book, and checkbook, which he says, had a running balance tabulated within it. The last check written was no. 2892 and the next check was no. 2893, the detective tells the jury. But in the register, check no. 2886 has a question mark next to it, he tells the jury. This is pointed out on a copy of the register for the jury to see on a TV. At this time, the detective says he pulled returned checks from Bob’s finances. And check no. 2886 was "written to Chery McCafferty for a large amount of money." According to the Fifth/Third transaction statement for Bob’s account the check was written to Cheryl in the amount of $2,000. It was then, says Adams that he started looking up other checks that were to Cheryl and found four other checks. But when he cross-referenced them with Bob’s register they weren’t made out to Cheryl. Check #2834: According to register was made out to Commonwealth Ortho for $181.67. The check itself was written to Cheryl in the amount of $2,000. Check #2861: According to register was made out to Commonwealth Ortho for $190.92. The check itself was written to Cheryl in the amount of $1,000. Check #2873: According to register was made out to NKY Junior Golf for $60. The check itself was written to Cheryl in the amount of $1,000. This check was written Jan. 31, 2007 but not written in register until May 5, 2007. Check #2874: According to register was made out to NKY Junior Golf for $175. The check itself was written to Cheryl in the amount of $1,000. This check was written on March 28, 2007; however was documented in register as May 5, 2007. With the questions in the detective’s mind he says he sent the checks to a forensic accountant and a handwriting expert to determine who wrote the checks. Adams says that he ran credit reports at that time as well and saw there was an "outstanding credit card debt." He found a blue notebook/folder that had Cheryl’s 12-step program inside. Snodgrass enters exhibit no. 113 as Cheryl’s American Express credit card statement. He reads the billing address as 815 Windborne Court in Erlanger, Ky. He says that they later identified this address as Cheryl’s mother Betty Gosney’s residence. He notes for the jury that in November 2006 there were large payments made to credit cards, but no like payments were made to the American Express card. And in October 2007 the balance on her statement, the detective says, was $5,009. The next statement submitted into evidence that the detective reads to the court is Cheryl’s Fifth/Third credit card statement. The November 2006 balance of $10,173 was paid off in November but was not closed. He says that between November and December another $9,600 was charged to the card and that at the time of Bob’s murder on June 25, 2007, the balance was $9,830. Her Citibank credit card statement, as read by the detective to the jury, states that it was paid off in November 2006. The amount was $3,526. In December 2006, the balance was $3,438 and in June 2007 as $2,691. Snodgrass notes that this means that she was over her limit at the time of the murder, to which the detective confirms for the jury. Adams then goes over the details of Cheryl’s Capital One credit card statement for the jury. In November 2006 the balance paid was $936 and the balance as of June 2007 was $1,093. The limit was $1,000. The last credit card statement that the detective goes over with the jury was paid off in November 2006 for the amount of $22,722, but again, was not closed. The balance as of June 2007 was $8,899. In all, according to the detective on the witness stand, after all was paid off in November 2007, Cheryl owed a new amount of nearly $30,000 at the time of the June 2007 murder.
Detective Brad Adams Takes Stand: 10:12 a.m.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Michelle Snodgrass calls Det. Brad Adams to the stand to testify regarding the McCaffertys’ finances, including checks that didn’t match the registers that they are from and credit cards that were paid off in full, but then racked up again at the time of Bob’s murder. Wearing a navy blue suit, white shirt and gray tie, the blonde detective, who sits regularly throughout the trial at the prosecution table, tells the jury that he first entered the crime scene at 2:47 p.m. and was taken a walk-through by Lt. Gadzala. Cheryl, who is wearing a cream sweater with one large button down the middle, brown skirt and brown shoes with silver buckles, is wearing her hair halfway up again, tied back with a large brown clip. She wears a set of large single-pearl earrings and a large-pearl, single-strain necklace. Adams continues to tell the jury that he was stationed in the kitchen area to talk bout the crime scene without interfering with the crime scene itself. Snodgrass shows him evidence and he identifies the item as a lightly colored wooden chopping block with black-handled knives in it. He says this set of knives matched the knife that was collected in the bedroom closet. He says that he did the final walk-through of the crime scene and collected Bob’s Blackberry, which was located on the nightstand in the master bedroom. He identifies the Blackberry in a photo, where he found it that morning, to the jury. On June 26, 2007, the detective says that he attended the autopsy that was done on Bob’s body at St. Luke East Hospital. He collected the bullet and fingerprint analysis at that point. As he tells the jury about these items, he slips on a pair of latex gloves and begins to open Commonwealth’s exhibit no. 103 and identifies the item as the bullet retrieved from the victim’s head. Adams opens an orange bag and pulls out a plastic bottle, the size of a medicine bottle and holds up the bullet to show the jury. He says at that point, he took those items back to the station and began search warrants on the two vehicles parked in the McCafferty’s garage. The witness says that after June 26, the house was released. "Obviously there was a lot of evidence," he says. In fact, there was many items that were being sent out to different labs for testing like the gunshot residue tests, the ballistics on the gun, fingerprints, writing samples, etc. He says that he is the one who coordinated all of the testing and sent it out to the designated labs. While the evidence was out for testing, the detective says he looked into the lives and background of the McCaffertys. Snodgrass hands the witness a stack of papers and he identifies them as the couple’s tax preparation for 2006. She asks the detective if they had a "decent yearly income?" To which he answers "I would say that." In 2006, Bob McCafferty, according to his W2s made $242,550 working for a medical supply manufacturer and Cheryl made $86,391, as a sales employee with the Cincinnati Enquirer.Snodgrass says to the detective, "More than you were making?" He chuckles and says yes. The next exhibit that the prosecution shows the witness is the life insurance policy that was on Bob’s life with Cheryl as the beneficiary. The amount was $300,000.
DAY 4, Feb. 26
Jury Hears More On Finances: 3:34 p.m.
Cross-examination continues as the defense questions Slouffman about the specifics regarding the McCaffertys’ financial portfolio. He says that their portfolio consisted of stocks and mutual funds. And on the November 2006, he reads the amounts for each of their accounts. Fleckinger redirects the witness asking what demeanor Cheryl and Bob had when they each called separately regarding the financial issue the McCaffertys faced. Slouffman says that Bob was not angry; however he says that Cheryl seemed "nervous—embarrassed that the situation had occurred." Court will convene Friday morning at 9:30 a.m.
Cheryl Chats Casually In Between Sessions: 3:34 p.m.
Just before court gets back in session for cross-examination of Jay Slouffman, conversation is had between a variety of people sitting within the courtroom. Cheryl pours Mungo and then herself a cup of water from the pitcher sitting at the defense table. She unfolds a piece of yellow legal paper, reads it, then folds it back up and places it within sheets of Dennison’s yellow legal pad. The room lacks both the jury and the judge at this time, but Mungo, Cheryl, Campbell County deputy sheriff Laura Guilford, who escorts Cheryl to and from jail and into the courtroom, along with the police officer who guards and assists with the evidence table in the courtroom and the detective for the prosecution, chat while awaiting for the trial to resume. The defendant sits with her legs crossed, seemingly relaxed, laughing and smiling as she chats with other players of the court. It was as if the group, who was discussing beef jerky, took a timeout and turned off their trial mode. But all is back to business once the courtroom hears "All rise" and the jury and judge enter the room.
McCaffertys' Financial Advisor Takes Stand: 2:40 p.m.
Jay Slouffman, the McCafferty’s financial advisor who works with Edward Jones, took the stand to testify on the family’s financial portfolio and the credit card debt in question. Also a family friend, Slouffman says that in October 2006 Cheryl contacted him regarding the credit card debt in the amount of $57,000 and inquired about a strategy on lowering this debt. He says that after that Bob also contacted him about meeting over this problem. At that time, Slouffman says, that Bob did not know the amount of the credit card debt. Upon meeting, the witness says, the McCaffertys liquidated stock in the amount of $45,000. At that time they made arrangements that $1,000 would be deducted from Cheryl’s IRA account every month until the full $45,000 was restored to the joint account in their portfolio. Just before 3 p.m. Fleckinger asks the witness: “Would you be surprised at the time of death there was $30,000 of additional debt?” To which the defense objected. Dennison cross-examines the financial advisor and refers to a police report from August 2007 where it says that Cheryl only had $9,000 in debt. He says that he doesn’t remember that and the court takes a recess.
| 
