EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that after multiple thorough investigations by organizers, there is in fact no evidence that Patricia Wright or Charlotte Reed even attended the Michigan Women's Music Festival. I certainly have no evidence that they did. It appears that the idea that they were attendees is based on hearsay, with various people repeating the claim to the point it appears to be a mythology based on assumptions and statements, rather than a historical fact. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused by suggesting that they were regular attendees of the festival.

June 16, 2023: Rivers transferred to the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF).

June 14, 2023: Rivers sentenced to multiple terms of life in prison with no possibility of parole. According to the San Jose Mercury News, “A well-known transgender activist was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering three family members in a brutal and frenzied attack that the judge said was the worst he’d seen in three decades.”

February 17, 2023: I received an email message from the victim advocate stating that the report and sentencing will occur on June 14, 2023. I do not know whether the sentencing judge has any authority to determine where he will be housed to serve his sentence. My understanding is that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation makes that determination once a prisoner is transferred from the county jail to state prison.

January 5, 2023: Dana Rivers has been found legally sane. His attorney has filed a motion for a retrial. The court will reconvene on January 31. Many thanks to @AirDhatu for the Twitter updates.

January 4, 2023: Outstanding summary of evidence presented and closing arguments in the insanity phase here, from Arianne, who was in the courtroom. According to Arianne, we’ll have a verdict on insanity on Thursday Jan. 5 at 11:00 a.m. PT (2:00 p.m. ET).

December 16: The insanity portion of the trial continues. I have the following notes from a friend reporting from the courtroom. The first defense witness appeared to testify that Rivers was insane at the time of the offenses.

“Dr. Marlin Griffith was questioned first by the Defense. Dr. Griffith is a forensic physiologist in private practice who was hired by the State to interview & evaluate Rivers. He has worked with the VA in compensation & claims, & has an extensive history working with veterans experiencing PTSD. He has also conducted 10 NGI (not guilt by insanity) evaluations He conducted an in person interview with Rivers for approximately 3 hours over two days in Feb of 2020. During the meetings he conducted a series of tests using screening tools & Rivers gave him an extensive social/job/trauma/mental health history. His findings were that Rivers suffered from complex PTSD, depression, anxiety, borderline personality, & showed some signs of malingering — in Rivers case exaggeration.

After looking over the police, VA, and other records & conducting the interviews, he formed the opinion that Rivers was not sane at the time of the murders under California law. He believes that Rivers had experienced a PTSD-related rage reaction & was in a state of disassociation, not capable of understanding the act at that time. In his experience, disassociation in veterans with PTSD can look very different than in other circumstance and it may not even be visible to the lay person — & that it was possible for Rivers to be dissociated during the murders themselves & come out of it by the time he was interacting with the police.

Defense also used Dr. Griffth to attack the testimony of Drs. Watt & Howard. It was Dr. Griffith’s opinion that Dr. Watt did not have the same extensive interaction with veterans who had PTSD as he did & wouldn’t have been able fully recognize the many & varied ways they can show their trauma. He also felt that it was not the best practice to interview someone if it was not in person, or to not conduct a sufficient screening/history, as he believed Dr. Howard had done.

During cross examination Prosecution pressed that this was his first time testifying in a NGI case & that he had no evidence in any of the records of a “triggering” event that could have caused the murders other than what Rivers had told him. Prosecution then went over the extensive list of statements & actions of Rivers after the murders listed in the police records & asked if any them changed his opinion about being insane at the time of the murders. Dr. Griffith admitted that Rivers bringing a silencer to the scene, using latex gloves, & taking the time to use multiple weapons would raise concerns with him but these did not change his opinion.

Prosecution also went over a phone call Rivers had with his brother a month after the murders during which he told him that his life had never been more in control that it was that night — Dr. Griffith admitted the statement might effect his opinion. Despite those concerns he said he stood by his report. He was also confronted with an exchange he had with Defense attorney Adams that the victims being killed in their pajamas might undercut the notion it was a rage response. Again he stood by his opinion Rivers was insane at the time of the murders.

Court resumes Monday. Defense might bring in one final witness but we won’t know until then. Counsel are expected to give brief closing statements.”

December 14: The insanity portion of the trial continues. I have the following notes from a friend reporting from the courtroom. Another prosecution witness has testified that Rivers was sane at the time of the offenses.

“Today’s witness was Dr. Amy Watt, a psychologist in private practice hired by the State to interview and evaluate Rivers. She spent around 3–4 hours in person at the Santa Rita jail with Rivers evaluating him and conducting a multitude of tests including those covering personality, cognition, IQ, & memory. She noted several significant details about her interview with Rivers:

The evaluation was unusually long due to Rivers extensive & detailed answers

He was able to give a complete & detailed life/medical/mental health history with ease — she described it as if he was reading from a book — it was very rare in her experience

He was able to go into extensive detail about prior traumatic events but could not describe the events of the night of the murders

Parts of his memory test were scored above average

He was very dramatic in his presentation

He had a long history of interpersonal conflicts & angry outbursts. Members of the Deviants Motorcycle Club were involved with some of these, such as when no one wanted to room with him during an overnight trip, victim Charlotte Reed seemed to be especially an issue for him (why was not discussed)

On a test where he was shown an image of a woman lying on a bed with a man standing away from her with is hand covering his face he was asked to provide a “story” about what he though was happening in the image, instead of a story he provided a “thought” for the male image:

‘I told that bitch I would kill her’, the man thought after the fact.

After her examination & reviewing the extensive records, she concurred with his previous diagnoses via the VA of PTSD, anxiety, depression, & borderline personality disorder. She saw no signs of psychosis, flashbacks, or dissociation currently or in his history. She also saw no signs of memory issues or cognitive impairment. 

She concluded that he had showed no signs of psychosis or disassociation the night of the murders & was sane under CA law at the time — she came to that conclusion by way of his calm demeanor & many remarks at the crime scene, that he was aware of what had happened & that he knew he was in trouble. She also agreed with the Prosecution that him coming to the scene with a loaded weapon with a silencer, using a latex gloves, & setting the garage on fire showed planning.

Defense tried to use Dr. Watt’s testimony about the extensive way she uses multiple tests & strictly in-person interviews to impeach Dr. Howard’s much leaner evaluation of Rivers. Dr. Watt noted every clinician is different & there is no one “right” way to do an evaluation done professionally. Adams repeatedly tried to press that a combination of PTSD & borderline personality disorder might cause disassociation or psychosis to “look” differently, but Dr. Watt’s rejected that theory. Defense theory that Rivers could have been “triggered” by an aggressive interaction that could have caused him to have a PTSD flashback response & violently act out without knowing what he did or remembering it was also rejected by Dr. Watt, who said people experiencing such a flashback would usually look to get to safety or retreat into themselves, not act out.”

December 13: The insanity portion of the trial continues. A woman in the courtroom wrote the following to me about today’s prosecution witness, who testified that Rivers was sane at the time of the offense:

Today's witness was forensic psychologist Dr. David Howard who was brought in by the Prosecution to evaluate Rivers' state of mind when the murders were committed. 

Howard testified that he had conducted an evaluation of Rivers, as well as reviewed reports by other doctors about Rivers history of diagnoses (PTSD, depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder), police reports, & body cam footage from the night of the murders in helping him determine his opinion.

He stressed that his job was not to diagnose Rivers but to evaluate his state of mind to determine if he was sane or insane - as defined in CA law - at the time of the murders. He determined that Rivers was sane based on his evaluation and Rivers' statements at the scene that showed he had an awareness of the events of the night & that he'd done something wrong. He was also aware enough to request the Deviants Club be contacted so they could find him an attorney.

Defense tried to call into question the quality of his evaluation of Rivers, claiming he did not sufficiently take into account Rivers multiple mental health issues & his history of sexual trauma going back to when he was 3 that taken together could have led to that night's events & qualified him as insane under the law. They also attempted to show Howard's interview with Rivers was negatively effected by a multitude of issues, including being conducted over Zoom, not conducting a thorough enough questioning, length of time between the events & evaluation by Howard (almost 6 years), and not taking into account the possible effects if medication on Rivers' demeanor during the meeting.

One interesting bit of information came out that had not been revealed during the jury trial because it was considered hearsay: Rivers claimed to another Dr. who interviewed him that he had been "triggered" by Toto Diambu [a.k.a., Benny Wright] attacking him with a knife, & that what happened that night was "self-defense". (Rivers did NOT claim that with Howard - he told him he had no memory of what occurred.)

Trial continues tomorrow with testimony from a Dr. Watt.

December 8: The insanity phase of the trial began on December 5, as scheduled. It baffles me that the court is entertaining the insanity plea, given that Rivers has already been found guilty of three counts of murder in the first degree and one count of arson, but evidently California law allows it. Several women went to the courthouse that day to stand in solidarity with lesbians and incarcerated women and were brutally attacked by a mob of violent men. I wrote a public (free and shareable) Substack piece about the events of that day here.

November 16: My analysis of the closing arguments and verdicts can be found on my Substack here. That post is free and shareable. The proceedings resume on December 5 for the jury to consider whether Rivers is not guilty by reason of insanity.

November 15: Closing arguments ended yesterday and the jury began deliberating this morning. It is anyone’s guess how long the jury will take to deliberate. I will have much more to say about the closing arguments soon, but for now, here are some sketches that a local artist made during closing arguments. I am sharing them with permission. Rivers is in the yellow sweater. The first two sketches are of the prosecutor’s closing argument and the second two are of the defense.

November 14: The notes below are from day 8 of the trial (I’m not sure what the actual date of the testimony was).

Today got off to a slow start due to technical difficulties. It turns out these technical difficulties were due to the fact that the first witness of the day is testifying all the way from Illinois, and is doing so via video (which was hard to set up). The judge explains that we are going out of order, rather than starting with the prosecution’s cross-examination of Sandra yesterday.

This first witness, testifying on video, is Professor David Lane, who teaches at the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University. He is a bald caucasian man with a beard and glasses. He is testifying from his home, so there is also the sound of a crying baby, whom he tries to calm down.

The defense begins questioning to establish Lane’s credentials. Lane is an ethnographer who has researched tattoo artists and people with tattoos, culminating in his book, The Other End of the Needle: Continuity and Change among Tattoo Workers. He has testified in court twice before. He is qualified as an expert witness on tattoos and tattoo work.

The defense begins to ask Lane about the “1%” tattoos Rivers has (Lane had been previously been provided with photos of Rivers’ tattoos). Lane says he remembers two “1%” tattoos, one on the back of Rivers’ hand, and the other on the side of Rivers’ neck. He says he has some exposure to motorcycle club tattoos, though his field of expertise is in sociology, not motorcycle clubs. He does not think such a tattoo necessarily indicates criminality. He says the stories people tell about the “1%” symbol are more myth than reality, stemming from TV and movies; most people with these tattoos are not criminals, but wear them as an identity symbol, much like heavy metal music fans wearing studded collars.

The prosecution begins her cross-examination by clarifying his area of expertise: he doesn’t have direct experience researching outlaw motorcycle gangs or the Hells Angels. He clarifies his research: In addition to his book, he is currently researching 34 people with tattoos who have undergone trauma. He also has not spoken to Rivers, nor has he asked to speak to Rivers, nor has he been asked to speak to Rivers. He received an email, sent yesterday around 5 PM PST, and read it around 1 am CST [I’m assuming this email had the photos of the tattoos]. He only knew he was going to testify an hour beforehand.

The prosecution begins to aggressively question Lane to get him to suggest a link between Rivers’ tattoos and violence, but Lane maintains his skepticism. He says lots of people with “1%” tattoos are non-violent. Likewise, gun tattoos are popular and do not necessarily reflect criminal intent. His main thesis seems to be that tattoos are an identity marker, and that their full meaning can only be deciphered with more context about that person’s social setting, etc. He does say that if someone (e.g. Rivers) has a tattoo for a particular club (e.g., the Deviants), he must really like that club, as it is part of his identity. He also doesn't seem know much about the links between certain tattoos (like AFFA) and Hells Angels.

Finally, Sandra, the President of the Deviants motorcycle club, returns to the stand for the prosecution to continue her cross examination. The prosecution hammers Sandra regarding her relationship to Rivers. Sandra once again acknowledges that she considered Rivers “family” in the sense that all Deviants are “family” (she said this yesterday as well). The prosecution asks her if she considered Rivers family “for life,” and she says she cannot recall. The prosecution tries refreshing Sandra’s memory by playing a phone conversation from November 16th, within a week of the murder. [NOTE: All the audio played in the trial today as evidence was of poor quality. I could not decipher or record it all. What is in this article are the snippets I could hear and jot down]. One snippet sounds like “take care of her 'till the end of time." The prosecution plays it a second time (Sandra couldn’t understand it the first time around), and this time the phrase "for life" is clear on a number of occasions.

It's also revealed that Sandra visited Rivers in jail. The prosecution plays another sound clip, presumably of Rivers: “I’m in this for life….I'm not going anywhere….I'm going to follow you, wherever you want to go.” The purpose of this clip is to demonstrate that Rivers reciprocated the pledge to the Deviants “for life.” However, Sandra says she did “not really" expect Rivers to remain loyal for life.

The prosecution then grills Sandra about a charity drive the Deviants held. Sandra confirms that, yes, the Deviants would hold an annual charity coat drive every December. The prosecution asks if, in 2016, the Deviants decided to hold a “Defense party” for Rivers following the murders instead of a coat drive. Sandra said there was no “defense party,” but rather grudgingly concedes that there were Deviants who were planning such a party. The prosecution asks if “brothers” were invited to the defense party. Sandra continues to emphasize that no defense party took place, but if it did, then yes, they would have invited “brothers.” Some back and forth ensues about whether the “brothers” included Hells Angels, which concludes with Sandra admitting that brothers include “guys clubs,” of which Hells Angels are included. The Prosecution plays another audio clip. Snippets sound something like “Brotherhood behind you 50%….bullshit.” The prosecution claims it says “brothers know how to deal with bullshit,” and asks if that’s a reference to Hells Angels knowing about dealing with criminal charges, such as murder. Sandra denies this has anything to do with murder and further emphasizes that there was no defense party.

The prosecution then questions Sandra about patches for motorcycle clubs. Sandra admits to having a red and white Hells Angels patch on her vest. But she says she has patches for many clubs on her vest, and she just has supporters’ patches, not members’ patches (you don’t have to be a member to be a supporter of a motorcycle group). She also concedes she knows some Hells Angels members, but also members of other clubs. The prosecution asks Sandra if she has a patch that says “outlaw,” but Sandra says she cannot recall. To refresh her memory, the prosecution displays a group photo of a number of Deviants members, including Sandra, her wife, Rivers, and some others. The prosecution claims Sandra is wearing an “outlaw” patch, but Sandra claims she cannot read it [NOTE: the writing in the photo is indeed hard to make out]. However, Sandra affirms she recognizes the “president” and “deviants” patches — the prosecution seems to find it suspicious that Sandra can recognize these two patches, but not the “outlaw” one.

The prosecution then revisits the topic of the meaning of the “1%” symbol that Rivers has tattoos of. Sandra reaffirms what she said yesterday, that the “1%” symbol indicates being a long-standing member of an all-female motorcycle group. Sandra once again affirms that a “1%er” (the symbol on Rivers’ hand tattoo) is different, stating that it has to do with “rough clubs” that don’t follow the “rules of the road.” Sandra emphatically denies being a “1%er.” But the prosecution displays on the screen a text from Sandra, saying “1%er” with many knife and gun emojis. Sandra affirms that Rivers did not get club approval for this tattoo, and does not know when Rivers got the tattoo since (according to her) he was wearing gloves so frequently. However, the prosecutor shows the group Deviants photo again, and it shows Rivers’ bear hand without a tattoo — this proves that Rivers got the 1% tattoo after he joined the Deviants.

After lunch recess, the prosecution continues her cross-examination by asking some miscellaneous questions: She asks about the nickname “Edge” that Rivers had [NOTE: yesterday, during the cellphone testimony, it was revealed that Rivers used this name sometimes]. Sandra claims Rivers chose that name for himself. Sandra states that her wife, the Vice President, held Rivers’ cuffs while he was in jail. They further clarify that the Deviants were mostly parents of young children. Sandra says Rivers had a daughter, but she was not young.

The prosecution beings to extensively question the witness about officers and bylaws for the Deviants. The prosecution asks Sandra if the Deviants stuck closely to the bylaws, and she says they did, with some rare exceptions. The prosecution draws attention to one of the bylaws, which states that Deviants in good standing cannot be in prison or jail. The prosecution goes on to ask, then, why Rivers was promoted to Sergeant in Arms while in jail. Sandra says she doesn’t recall if he was in jail when that promotion happened. The prosecution also asks if new members of the Deviants were brought to the jail in honor of this promotion. The prosecution plays audio from January of 2017, which sounds something like “let me introduce you….she knows that you’re the sergeant.” Sandra pushes back, saying she didn’t think new members were brought to jail for the purpose of honoring Rivers’ promotion per se — they just were there to see Rivers. The clip is played again — there is a key phrase, “Out of respect, you need to talk to her.”

The cross-examination takes an even more dramatic turn when the prosecution asks Sandra if she wanted to make money for the Deviants out of the murder. Sandras emphatically denies this. A clip is played, talking about the “coat drive” and “this makes money,” along with the sound of small children crying. Sandra claims she wasn’t paying attention to the conversation at the time because she was attending to her kids (hence, the sound of children in the audio clip). Sandra continues to deny that violence was ever a part of the Deviants’ business, and affirms there was no officer of “enforcer” in the club (“enforcer” being the title Rivers claimed for himself). The prosecution then highlights how Rivers asked Sandra when he joined whether any Deviants had charges against them, and goes on to play a sound clip of a phone conversation to prove it. It sounds like “weekend….charges from anybody,” or something like that.

Finally, the prosecution casts the spotlight on Sandra’s relationship with Charlotte Reed. Sandra says she only knew Charlotte for 3 months, and clarifies that Charlotte didn’t even reach the level of “prospective” member, but was just a “hang around” (which apparently conflicts with a statement she told lawyers earlier, when she said Charolette did indeed reach the level of prosepctive). She emphatically denies ever threatening Charlotte via text, but the prosecution shows otherwise by showing an image of 2 texts she sent [NOTE: I couldn’t quite make out the full text, but you probably get the point]: one says something like “you touch me + you fucking with a….bitch[?]”, and the other is something like “stay smart, back off, bitch.” Sandra mightily denies she sent either of those tweets — this might have been the angriest moment of the trial.

On that dramatic note, the witness is dismissed. The defense has no more witnesses to call. The judge announces there is no more evidence, so the jury and audience are let out early to reconvene Monday.

Reported by Arianne

Notes from November 8:

Ballistics expert Lilliam Lau of the Oakland Police Department gave testimony related to firearms in general and to those found at the scene of the crime, specifically. She described the kinds of testing and analysis she performed on the firearms and ammunition found at the crime scene.

Some of the testimony related to the fact that at least one of the pistols, a Colt 1911 semi-automatic found at the scene did not operate optimally. Later it was determined that after-market parts had been installed on the gun. She agreed that modifications with after-market parts could affect the gun's accuracy but probably not significantly.

The next witness was Timothy Latibeaudiere of the Oakland Police Department. He was assigned to investigate the area around the fence at the back of the property. He discovered an orange lighter with possible blood outside the property near the fence. At the same place was a boot print in the soft soil, in addition to possible blood.

Clarification was provided that there were two orange lighters at the scene, the one near the fence and another one found inside the home. Latibeaudiere was asked by the Defense if he had noticed an RV behind the fence, and he answered that he had.

Inspector Jason Riechers of Oakland Police Department was the next witness. Riechers, an expert in call detail records, cell towers, and phone extraction, performed analyses on Reed's and Rivers's cellphones. He described the software that helped plot locations and indicated that all software went through a validation procedure by his unit before it was relied upon.

Riechers showed call detail records, or records from the phone providers about when and where transactions took place between particular phone numbers. These included the transactions on Rivers's phone in between September and November 11, 2016, the date of the murders. Some of these involved a cell tower near the victims' home and were consistent with the idea that Rivers was near the their home during these times, including the evening of November 10, 2016.

Riechers then described the process of extracting data from the phones. These data, consisting of message exchanges, photos, and emails between Rivers and Reed, were presented. Reed's phone had some exchanges with Rivers that seemed "amicable", in Riechert's opinion. Reed appeared to appreciate Rivers's friendship and his showing his vulnerability. Both indicated fears of betrayal.

Extraction of data from Rivers's phone included personal texts, group chats, images, emails, and web searches that seemed relevant to the case. In a group text chat at 11:15 a.m. on November 10th, Rivers told Sandra, president of the Deviants, : ". . .air then gone. Red tag is 2001, but red which is 2016. Casual glance should be OK. I am going stealth to avoid attention, search my bike would not be good [emojis]". This message was sent by Rivers when he was in the SW corner of Sacramento.

Rivers texted Vanessa (presumed to be his wife) on November 10: "...remember P knows where to find me." [Note: It was clarified later in the day that "P" stood for "President," i.e., Sandra]. There were also November 10 texts between Reed and Rivers. These texts seem to indicate Rivers was traveling to meet up with Reed. For example, there was a reference to "Bay Fair," possibly referring to the BART station in San Leandro. Reed at one point texted "I'm glad you're here."

Attention then turned to images found on Rivers's phone. One was a picture of a girl next to a burning house, with the caption, "Biker chicks don't mess with team." Another said "My love is like a candle. If you forget me, I'll burn your fucking house down", with the image of candle.

Next, Riechers presented emails and web searches that were on Rivers's phone. On April 8, 2016, there was a message to a Hell's Angels associated person. On April 11, Rivers ordered from EBay a Hogue laser enhanced Colt 1911. The following weeks, there were also orders for a Hell's Angels patch, 45 caliber ammunition, a recoil spring, a thread protector, and a Colt 1911 slide kit. Some of Rivers's web searches had been deleted but were recovered using the extraction process.

Other emails Rivers sent included, "In our bike world, I'm very much a 'tip of sword' combat [illegible] protector and enforcer....a 1% in every sense of what that label means."

The Defense in cross-examination drew attention to a text exchange between Reed and Rivers around 4:00 p.m. on November 10th. Rivers texted, "Thinking about you." Reed texted: "Threatened by rent-a-cop...may retaliate." Rivers responded: "I'll take BART and be there ASAP" and later "I'll be ready to stay around if police show up again."

The Defense seemed to be trying to portray Reed's and Rivers's relationship as cordial the day before the murders. Rivers appeared to be in Sacramento the morning of the 10th, and it's not clear when he arrived in Oakland.

Next, the Defense called their first witness, Sandra, the president of the Deviants Motorcycle Club Rivers and Reed were members of. Sandra led the club when she took it over from a previous group in 2009. The club dissolved around 2020.

On questioning by the Defense, Sandra testified the club was small and all female, with no more than seven people at any time. Two or three members had left the group during its existence. Most members were moms, she said, and the average age was 50+. Members started as "get-alongs," then become prospective members, then full members. At each stage, one received a patch. Sandra stated the club held a coat drive every December and donated the coats to shelters.

Sandra stated the only required clothing item for the Deviants was a vest. She emphasized the group was peaceful and law-abiding. The only requirement when leaving the club was to return the patches. When Reed returned her patch, it wasn't a "big deal" at all, according to Sandra. Sandra said if one was a member for five years or more, she got a "1%" tattoo. When asked, she responded that she had one, and it was on her shoulder.

According to Sandra, the "1%" referred to the small portion of women's motorcycle clubs with a rocker saying "California" rather than a city or a region. (A rocker is a curved patch that is placed under the club's symbol and indicates the location of the club.) Sandra distinguished her "1%" tattoo from Rivers's"1%er" tattoo. She also said Rivers was a member of the Deviants for only year or so, and hence got his tattoo without the club's permission.

Sandra stated there was no "Enforcer" title within the organization. She also stated she never issued any orders directing Rivers or anyone in the group to Reed's address on the day of the murder.

The Prosecution appeared to attempt to paint Rivers as being extremely obsessed with the Deviants, while Sandra was more restrained in her description. She said Rivers was "loyal," but not necessarily "extremely loyal." One way Rivers served the club was by helping riders fix their motorcycles, since he had a lot of knowledge and skill.

Sandra also said she didn't recall ever being contacted by the Defense, although later she realized a man named Dan had been there, asking questions. Sandra also denied that Rivers had ever looked after her children. She said Rivers was "family" only in the sense that all Deviants members were "family," but that she wasn't close to Rivers personally.

Sandra was then excused for the day and asked to return the next day. Overall, Sandra seemed to be trying to distance herself from Rivers and portray her club as harmless and irrelevant to this case.

November 14: The notes below are from Nov. 8. CORRECTION: The notes below are from November 7. I am posting a report from November 8 above.

November 8th, 2022

Two witnesses testified today. The first one started and finished his testimony today; the second started today and will continue tomorrow.

The first was Dr. Tom Rogers, the forensic pathologist at the coroner’s office. He has the appearance of an elderly balding caucasian man with a white beard. Though he primarily works for the Coroner’s office in San Mateo county, he also sometimes works for the Alameda County Coroner’s Office. He has worked in this job since 1979 and has performed 16–17 thousand autopsies. He is established as an expert witness in forensic pathology.

He proceeds to talk about the autopsy he performed on Charlotte Reed. He confirms details on the report about her height/weight, the clothes she was wearing, and the heart monitoring pads applied to her. Blood was all over her body. Rigor mortis had already passed, but there was red discoloration on a part of her body (“lividity”).

The discussion turns to the “blunt force wounds” (bruising, basically) found on Reed. Dr. Rogers found bruises on the top part of a finger, thighs, knees, other parts of legs, and the front part of the abdomen. (It should be noted that Dr. Rogers uses his report to assist him for much of his testimony.) The Prosecution asks if Reed’s bruises could be due to an assailant pinning her down. He says that “it’s a possibility,” but cannot give any further confirmation.

Dr. Rogers proceeds to talk about the gunshot wounds found on Reed. There were two gunshot wounds, one on the front left side of the chest, the other on the front side of the left shoulder. The bullet that caused the former wound passed through the ribs and left lung. Since there was no exit wound, the bullet remained in the lung. This wound also contained “stippling,” or gunpowder residue; stippling is only present when the gun is very close to the target when fired. There was hemorrhaging associated with this wound, meaning that Reed was still alive at the time she received this wound. The second bullet wound, the one to the shoulder, also had hemorrhaging and signs of stippling. This one penetrated soft tissue.

He also details multiple stab wounds (“deep” cuts) and incise wounds (“shallow” cuts), he reckons over 40 total: 28 on head/neck area, 12 on torso, one on right arm, and some on both hands. He goes through them, one by one. Of note is that some of the stab/incise wounds had hemorrhaging, while others did not. This means the assailant stabbed Reed while she was still alive and continued to stab her after she died. He adds that some of the wounds were consistent with a double-edged blade, some with a single-edged blade, and others were indeterminable.

The testimony then turns to a series of extremely graphic photographs of Reed’s body and her wounds. Of note is the cut to Reed’s left hand. The prosecution asks if this could be due to Reed employing self-defense; Dr. Rogers says, “It’s a possibility.”

Dr. Rogers then delivers his verdict on Reed’s cause of death — he thinks she died by a combination of stabbing and gunshot wounds.

[NOTE: it would seem that the evidence suggests the assailant shot Reed at close range, stabbed her while she was still alive, and continued to stab her after she died. It’s clearly an act of rage and/or mania. The cuts to Reed’s act introduce the possibility that Reed tried to defend herself, perhaps indicating why Rivers had a hand wound and a cut glove. If Rivers fired the guns *before* his hand/glove was sliced, that could explain why his DNA was not found on either gun.]

Dr. Rogers then begins his discussion of the second autopsy he performed for this crime scene, for Toto Diambu (aka Benny Wright). He first discusses the blunt force injuries. These include a lot of abrasions and scrapes. All but one lacked scabbing, indicating that they were inflicted no more than three days before Diambu died. Could these injuries be due to an altercation? The witness answers, “It’s a possibility” (this seems to be his favorite answer throughout his testimony).

Dr. Rogers then discusses 2 gunshot wounds found on Dimabu. One appears to be a grazing wound, that is, a wound where the bullet just brushes against the skin rather than piercing the skin. He admits that he isn’t certain this is a grazing wound, but it’s his best guess, based on his experience. The second bullet pierced his heart. Photos are shown of Diambu’s injuries. Dr. Rogers concludes the bullet to the heart was the cause of Diambu’s death.

Finally, Dr. Rogers is asked if he knows Dr. Paul Hermans. He explains that Dr. Hermans is the doctor who performed the autopsy of Patricia Wright. Since Dr. Hermans cannot testify at the trial due to poor health, Rogers will read from Dr. Herman’s report and determine if he agrees with the conclusions. Photos are also displayed.

The summary of Wright’s injuries is as follows:

• “Blunt injuries” consist of one scrape to the left side of Wright’s neck.

• There are 4 gunshot wounds on Wright, in 2 pairs — that is, there are two wounds where bullets entered, and two where they exited. Both hit critical organs. One bullet entered through the left breast, the second on the left back. This latter is “possibly” indicative of Wright being shot in the back as she was lying on her stomach.

• There is a stab wound on the left side of Wright’s neck.

Dr. Rogers agrees with Dr. Herman’s conclusion that Wright died due to multiple bullet and stab wounds.

The defense cross-examination of Dr. Rogers begins. The defense asks questions largely to highlight the uncertainty of the various scenarios the prosecution suggests — Dr. Rogers can only affirm that certain scenarios are consistent with the evidence, but cannot prove the scenarios actually happened. The defense also draws attention to toxicology reports showing Reed had potentially lethal dosages of the drug “venlafaxine” in her blood, according to toxicology reports. Dr. Rogers explains that this drug can break down into the potentially lethal compound “desmethylvenlafaxine.” Wright also tested positive for some drug in her system. However, Dr. Rogers is skeptical that these drugs contributed to their deaths. Also, during the prosecution’s cross-examination, it is clarified that both of the drugs are generally prescription drugs rather than street-level recreational drugs. That is the end of Dr. Roger’s testimony.

The second and final witness of the day was Criminalist Lilliam Lau. She has the appearance of a young Asian-American woman with long loose hair. She is the ballistics expert at the Oakland Police Department’s crime lab. She has worked there for 6 years and worked with firearms for 14 years. She tested the guns and bullets found at the scene of the crime. She is established as an expert witness in firearms examination, bullets, test firing, and functionality. After giving an overview of ballistics testing and firearms technology, she begins to talk about the two guns discovered at the scene of the crime.

The first gun Lau discusses is the Colt 1911 45-caliber semi-automatic pistol found at the base of the stairway. She talks about how this gun has various “aftermarket” additions to it, or features that were not part of the gun at its initial sale. One such addition is the “silencer” or “suppressor,” which suppresses the sound of gunfire (though does not entirely eliminate it, which is why the term “silencer” is misleading and “suppressor” is preferred). She tested the pistol with and without the suppressor, and both times the gun was defective. To be clear, the gun could still fire, but the slide was difficult to use. She concludes that the barrel of the gun was binding to the slide. She says she noticed that the suppressor was damaged, and wonders if this damaged suppressor caused damage to the gun itself.

She continues to discuss other forensic tests she did. For example, she concluded the cartridge case found on the scene was in fact used for this colt pistol (she explains that she used a microscope to determine this). She also talks about how she fired a test bullet of this gun into water, and compared the test bullet to that found in Diambu’s body. She concludes that it’s likely the bullet that killed Diambu is from this same gun.

After a discussion of some of the other accessories the gun game with, such as the thread protector and the sight, attention turns towards a tattoo Rivers has of a pistol. Lau explains how the gun on this tattoo matches the 1911 colt found at the scene of the crime. Distinctive features the real gun and the tattoo gun share include an after-market grip with finger grooves in the front, 2 notch cutouts, an aftermarket trigger, grip safety, extended tang, skeletonized hammer, and laser. She also points out that the tattoo and real gun both share an arched frame, which is unusual for 1911 colt pistols, which normally have flat frames.

Finally, she discusses her analysis of the 38-caliber revolver found at the scene of the crime [NOTE: this was the gun that belonged to Reed and was found near her in the bedroom]. Lau says the bullet fragment found in Wright’s body was too damaged for her to test. However, the 2 bullet fragments found in Reed due indeed appear to come from the 38 caliber revolver, according to Lau’s analysis.

Lau concludes today’s testimony by talking about how she repackaged the guns after she was finished analyzing them. The defense will begin cross-examination tomorrow.

Overall, this was quite possibly the most emotionally intense day yet due to the graphic nature of the material discussed.

Reported by:

B

November 14: Posting updates as I get them. The notes below are from Nov. 7.

November 7, 2022

Summary of Prosecution Witness Criminologist Helena Wong

Direct Examination:

DNA criminologist Wong explains the correct storage of DNA samples obtained at crimes scenes, emphasizing they should be kept dry and cold. Is given a hypothetical scenario of gathering DNA evidence that had been exposed to heat from a fire — could this exposure inhibit getting a DNA sample? Yes, it is possible is her response.

Wong then describes how she obtains samples of DNA from crime scenes: this happens primarily from swaps of pieces of physical pieces of evidence and cuttings of pieces of physical evidence. These samples are stored at the Oakland Police Department evidence locker. She also received DNA reference samples from four individuals:

Patricia Wright

Charlotte Reed

Toto Diambu (aka Benny)

Dana Rivers

Wong then explains to the jury that transsexual woman Rivers’ DNA sample will identify his sex as “male”.

She also describes what a presumptive test for blood involves: an agent is added to a sample of what is suspected of being blood and, if the color changes, it is presumed to contain blood. Wong did a presumptive test for blood on every swab she received for testing and the majority tested positive for blood. Individual swabs taken on scene by crime scene technicians were also tested for blood and they all came back positive.

(Photos of the swab samples taken during processing and their evidence bags/containers are now shown.)

She goes over where each sample was collected via swap by herself and crime scene technicians. Information included is the source (an individual or multiple individuals mixed together, who contributed more/less DNA) and who the sample belongs to.

On scene swabs:

- Dunbar Dr. behind Toyota: single source, Toto Diambu

- Corner of Hawkins Dr. and Ellington Way: single source, Dana Rivers

- Sidewalk on Hawkins Dr.: single source, Dana Rivers

- Dunbar Dr., right side of sidewalk: single source, Dana Rivers

- Hallway cutout door handle area: multiple sources, major donor Dana Rivers, minor donor Charlotte Reed

- Sliding glass door: single source, Dana Rivers

- Door to backyard handle: multiple sources, major donor Dana Rivers, minor donor sample so little that no one can be included or excluded as donor

- Backyard fence: multiple sources, Major donor Dana Rivers, minor donor Charlotte Reed

Swabs taken from knife with belt clip:

- Knife blade: multiple sources, major donor Charlotte Reed, minor donor Dana Rivers

- Knife blade release: multiple sources, major donor Charlotte Reed, minor donor Dana Rivers

- Knife belt clip: multiple sources, equal donors Charlotte Reed and Dana Rivers

At this point, Wong talks a little about statistical frequency of DNA tests and matching to a specific person. Testing on the items of evidence she conducted resulted in the statistical frequency ranges of quadrillion and quintillion to 1 chance that the DNA samples related to someone other than that person. Prosecution also asked a hypothetical question about the chances that DNA from a single stab wound on one victim could be “erased” by the stabbing of a second victim with the same knife if the second victim was stabbed 40 times. Wong says that the scenario is possible.

Swabs taken from screwdriver:

-Shank: multiple sources, equal donors Charlotte Reed and Dana Rivers

-Handle: multiple sources, major donor Dana Rivers, minor donor Charlotte Reed

-Top of handle: multiple sources, major donor Dana Rivers, minor donor Charlotte Reed

Swabs taken from the 1911 Colt firearm:

-Grip: low level mix of DNA, not enough to make a determination

-Magazine: No DNA detected

-Slide: low level of DNA, everyone who was a reference sample excluded

Swabs taken from the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver:

-Left grip: single source, Charlotte Reed

-Interior muzzle: single source, Charlotte Reed (Wong notes it is significant and usual to find a DNA sample in the interior muzzle)

Swabs taken from full-face, Harley Davidson motorcycle helmet:

-Face shield: single source, Dana Rivers

-Front portion under chin area: single source, Dana Rivers

-Underside of helmet: tested positive for presumption of blood

Swabs taken from black, sleeveless leather vest:

-Right front of vest: multiple sources, low level mix of DNA, sex female and male

-Left front of vest: single sources, Charlotte Reed

-Neck/collar of swab: multiple sources, equal amounts donors Charlotte Reed and Dana Rivers, 3rd donor sample too small to make a determination

Swabs taken from Size 2x Indian Motorcycle brand black, short-sleeve shirt with the sales tag still hanging from the collar:

Collar: blood not present but DNA present, multiple sources, equal amounts donors Charlotte Reed and Dana Rivers

-Front right side: multiple sources, major donor Charlotte Reed, minor donor Dana Rivers

-Bottom front right side: single source, Dana Rivers

Swab taken from size small, black, long sleeve, collarless shirt (Wong noted this shirt was heavily stained on both back and front, and was stiff, which is consistent with the shirt having been soaked in blood and then drying):

-Left cuff: single source, Charlotte Reed

Swab taken from dark blue jeans (Wong noted these jeans were heavily stained in the thigh area, and were stiff, which is consistent with the thighs of the jeans having been soaked in blood and then drying):

-Front right thigh: single source, Charlotte Reed

Wong gives a listing of a few other items that were taken from the Defendant but were not tested due to a lack of request for testing:

-Blue bra with red/brown staining on both cups

-Low slung hipster panties with a small amount of red/brown staining in the front crotch area

Cross Examination:

Defense asks Wong to go into more detail on how statistical frequencies are determined by her — she explains the inputing of DNA data points into a computer program that then calculates the frequency. In the Rivers case, 15 DNA data points points were used. Defense quizzes her on the number of points used in DNA testing kits in subsequent years, when those new additional points were added to the testing kits, and whether the more points used resulted in a better statistical results. Wong made it clear that the 15 points she relied on in 2016 was standard at the time and sufficient for the job needed. Defense then asks Wong to go into detail about what is involved with loading a DNA sample to the FBI’s CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) database and it’s purpose. Wong explains the purpose of entering DNA data to CODIS so that criminal perpetrators can be found by authorities across the country, she also discusses the sufficient data profile needed to get a specific “hit” instead of an unnecessary inclusion of DNA profiles. She is asked if she ever heard back regarding the uploaded DNA profile of “item 79”, Wrong replies she did not hear back, that she only hears back if there is a match and the DNA source was unknown, in this case the source was known so there was no need for a call. Defense returns to the subject of statistical frequencies and the number of DNA data points, asking if Wong ever went back at any point and retested the Rivers swab samples using the higher number of data points used today. Wong insists there was no reason to, testing results at 15 points was sufficient.

Defense moves on to Wong’s use of her report in her testimony, asking why she documented some items and not others in the receipts of her report. She says items may not be in the receipts but are located in the body of the report.

The packaging of the swab samples is gone over, and Wong details how each swab is put in a transport tube, then individually wrapped, then put in paper envelopes, then how many envelopes can be placed together in a larger paper bag for transport, clothing can be wrapped in paper. Asked if that is standard Wong replies yes. Defense asks if she had any concern about potential blood contamination from using paper, Wong says no and that she would have seen any blood that had come through the packaging. She is asked how the blood soaked shirt was packaged but is unable to remember.

She is asked about a hypothetical question posed by Prosecution. In this case, Wong had received two stabbing/puncturing items, neither of which contained the DNA of victim Wright — Defense asks if it possible to not see DNA from a victim if they had been stabbed first and then the weapon was used to stab a second person? When you layer wet blood on wet blood, is it like oil & water or do you get a mix? The screwdriver in evidence is asked about specifically: did you attempt to get all the material layers when you swabbed? When she swabs, Wong explains she attempts to get all the material in that one spot. Asked if blood is generally always visible by the naked eye, she says that most time yes, but blood diluted to the point it is not visible is possible. Is it protocol to only swab a small area of an item, wouldn’t it make more sense to swab as much area as possible to determine of there was more than one person? Wong says it could. Defense poses a hypothetical about a pistol and finding DNA on it had been used with a hand covered in a bloody glove, Wong concedes it is not uncommon to find DNA evidence on such a glove. Asked if she would expect to see DNA on a latex glove that had a slit in a finger and a cut bad enough to deposit DNA all over the house — yes, if the person had touched the gun, was her reply. Defense moves on to the pistol, asking her when she tested the slide on the pistol, she believed one donor was male and one female, and had Wong confirm that she couldn’t connect it to any of the victims or Rivers specifically.

What goes into Wong’s analysis of the information she has gathered is gone over, she explains how matches based on DNA data points occur. She is asked again about potential contamination during the evidence processing, and admits that contamination has happened in other cases and that controls are run to assure that such contamination has not happened. Defense ends by asking her if she every reason to believe that her results are accurate and she responds in the affirmative.

Redirect:

Prosecution revisits the hypothetical in which one person is stabbed then another person is stabbed multiple times with the same object, which can possibly result in loss of identifiable DNA from the first victim. Wong is asked if the samples she received are still in her lab and she says that she submitted them back to the Oakland Police Depart evidence unit. She is also asked if the reason she didn’t use the entire evidence sample when doing her analysis is so that it could be saved for future use, and that Defense could have use of it and her answer is yes to bother questions. Finally, Wong is asked if any leakage or contamination on the envelopes or paper used to store the samples would have been noted in her report and she confirms that.

Recross:

Wong is asked if defense wanted to do testing on the evidence would they have to pay for it? Yes they would, is her response.

End of examination, witness is released.

November 12: Below are notes from Nov. 2.

November 2nd, 2022

The day begins with Officer Corey Hunt continuing his testimony from yesterday. He and the prosecution go through many items and photographs taken at the scene of the crime, including:

• Exhibit of 2 envelopes, magazine, 6 rounds of 45 caliber bullets, and an empty bullet case.

• Photographs taken of the outside of residence, including of a screwdriver, bloody sidewalks, the motorcycle (with blood stains), and the motorcycle helmet.

• Photographs taken of the interior of residence, including garage.

• Exhibit of items retrieved from Officer Kofford, including wallet, “Deviants” business cards, “Deviants” necklace, and 38 mm live ammo.

• Photographs of Rivers’ injuries taken at the hospital, including a cut right index finger and bandaged calf.

• Description of Rivers’ tattoos:

  • Tattoo of firearm, on the leg.

  • Tattoo of California shape with letters “DFFD mc,” on back of neck.

  • Two diamond shaped tattoos that say “1%.”

  • “Deviants” tattoo on chest.

• Body cam footage showing Hunt remove Rivers’ gloves. Hunt explains the gloves were wet, but he was unsure why.

• Exhibit of items he collected the next day, including 2 knives in sheathes, one with necklace chain.

• Photographs of interior of the house, including bloodstains, a revolver, and the deceased victims lying with multiple lacerations.

• Photographs of the clothes Rivers was wearing that night, some of which had apparent blood stains.

The defense proceeds with her cross examination. Highlights:

• She (the defense lawyer) brings up some pills he found on Rivers, and asks if he looked into the contents. Hunt says no.

• She confirms with Hunt that he cannot tell who started the altercation purely based on the blood on the clothes.

• She inconclusively tries to establish how far away the revolver was from the victim’s body.

• She displays exhibit of knife; Hunt confirms he didn’t unsheathe the knife or notice blood on it.

• There is a lengthy exchange about Hunt’s decision to swab Rivers’ hands for gunfire residue, rather than using a more proper GSR kit. He says he didn’t have a kit, and in any case people in his position don’t bother with GSR kits anymore.

• Hunt confirms he did no research on to whom the guns belonged.

• She ends by grilling him on his arrival time and if he knew if any items were moved before he came (he doesn’t know).

The prosecution returns for another cross-examination. There is a brief exchange about why items are logged as evidence, and more information on why GSR kits aren’t used anymore (apparently, there is low supply).

Hunt is then dismissed, subject to recall.

The next witness is FBI agent Heather Newberry. She looks like a middle aged caucasian woman with greying brown hair tied back.

The prosecution starts her questioning by asking Newberry about her experience: Newberry has worked for the FBI for over 10 years as a special agent, and currently works on violent crime in Alameda County. Her training includes 20 weeks of FBI training, as well as a further 2 weeks of forensics evidence training for her additional role on an evidence response team. She explains that she has only responded to a few major cases since 2016, but she responds to about 15 a year for smaller scenes.

After the lunch break, the prosecution begins to question Newberry about her investigation of the crime scene. They begin by going through photos taken of the interior of the home, as well as the area around the home. These include photos of stains of a “red substance” (i.e., potential blood) found inside. They also include “red substance” on the interior of the fence. Other photos display the gun on the bed, a cellphone on the bed, casings, the body of the victim on the street, a motorcycle, and a motorcycle helmet. Newberry confirms that they took numerous DNA samples from the “red substance.”

After the afternoon break, the prosecution and Newberry continue by talking about the items found in the two saddlebacks of the motorcycle. One saddleback contains a blue backpack, speed loader, lighters, two magazines, and unloaded 45 caliber ammo; the other contains a laptop and knife with a “red substance.” Further photos of the neighborhood (with more “red substance”) are displayed, including from the outside of the fence — indeed, there was “red substance” on both the inside and outside of the fence. Finally, there was a display of FBI sketches taken of the area.

The defense then begins her cross examination. Much of the discussion centers around the 5 cellphones recovered from the scene. Newberry clarifies that they were only able to extract data from 4 of those phones. The defense asks about the firearms and the saddleback – she asks if any of the items were moved prior to Newberry’s arrival, but Newberry doesn’t know. Nor does Newberry know who put the items in the saddleback. Next, the defense and Newberry establish that the “speed loader” is designed for a revolver with 6 bullets, while Reed’s revolver stores only 5 bullets; Newberry says that, while she does not know much about guns, she would assume that a 6-bullet speed loader would not work for a 5-bullet revolver. The defense goes on to ask more questions about the geography of the neighborhood. Finally, Newberry ends by clarifying why her team responded to this crime — it’s because it was a “complex” scene.

Then we broke for evening recess.

Reported by:

@AirDhatu

November 11: Sketch of the defendant, courtesy of a local artist.

November 11: This is a very long update from Nov. 3 that I received from one of the women observing the trial. I’m copying it verbatim as I received it.

Despite a relatively “short” day, there were quite a few witnesses — 6 in all, though the lawyers went through most of them relatively quickly.

The first was FBI agent Christopher Elges. He appears to be a middle-aged Caucasian man. The prosecution Q&A begins by going over his training and experience. This includes the typical 5-month FBI training, plus the 2 weeks for the evidence response team training. He says he’s collected biological samples for the FBI about 6 times.

He testifies that he arrived at the scene of the crime around 6–7 am. He thinks maybe there were 10–15 people in his team, but he’s not sure. He says this is the only time he has responded to a homicide with 3 or more victims, aside from a couple of mass shootings. He did not collect samples from the scene, but was a witness for those who did — it’s explained that, for every sample, there is one person who collects the sample, and one person who witnesses the collection.

The witness and prosecution go over several (about 7) photographs. These include photographs of various red marks (blood?) on the sidewalk. There are closeups of the red marks with rulers indicating the size of the mark. Elges sometimes has to refer to his case book to jog his memory for the evidence. It’s confirmed that there are 101 items logged from the scene of this crime. The prosecution ends by focusing on a particular item, item 5, which is a swab sample of a red substance found behind a Toyota sedan vehicle [Note: does she find something about this particular item significant? It’s not clear]. He ends by saying all these items were given to the Oakland Police Department.

The defense begins her cross-examination by asking if he can tell when the blood was deposited on each item. Elges says he does not know. He confirms, when prompted by the defense, that he didn’t collect evidence or handle evidence already collected. He did, however, take measurements, he guesses over 50. But he did not take a measurement of the distance between the revolver and the body of the victim (Reed) found on the bed. [Note: This is not the first time the defense attorney has asked a witness this question. I’m assuming she wants to demonstrate that it was possible for Reed to have held the gun at one point prior to her death.]

The next witness is FBI Special Agent Meredith Sparano, a middle-aged Caucasian woman with dark hair in a ponytail. She, too, did the typical FBI training, plus additional training in evidence collection. She is now a team leader for the San Francisco Division’s Evidence Response Team in the FBI. She confirms that she did in fact take samples from this crime scene — she thinks over 50 swabs, with a total of over 100 pieces of evidence. Her role for this assignment was primarily to do the photo log and take samples. There is a lot of discussion of the proper procedure for collecting evidence, including making sure the collectors wear two layers of gloves, a white body suit, and slippers. Attention then turns to photos of where the swab samples were taken. These include various photos of “red substance” on door handles, as well as on the backyard fence. She ends by confirming that she gave the swab samples to the police.

The defense begins the cross-examination by asking about Sparano’s priorities when collecting the samples. Sparano says she is interested in protecting the integrity of the evidence, and she’s not focused on what’s relevant for the trial. There is a lot of discussion of a particular photo, I-10, that showed a “red substance” near both a door-handle and the deadbolt above it. The defense tries nailing down the exact procedure for swabbing this sample — was a sample taken just from the “red substance” near the handle, or also from the “red substance” near the deadbolt? Sparano cannot tell. There was also a discussion on photo I-16, which shows a gloved hand (either Sparano’s or her partner’s) collecting evidence. Discussion ensues about the details of the procedure for collecting swab samples in pairs — apparently, one person (the “dirty” half) does the swabbing, while his or her partner (the “clean” half) places the samples in envelopes. There is also a discussion about how gloves are removed/employed. The cross-examination ends with Sparano confirming that she collected bullet fragments from the master bedroom.

The next witness was FBI special agent Alex Kobzanets, a middle-aged man with dark hair and a faint accent. He, too, underwent FBI training, as well as advanced training in forensic photography. He was assigned to take photographs of the area outside the residence at the crime scene. He also searched a room inside and packaged evidence. The prosecution shows him exhibit 10, which was the handgun found in the bedroom. The gun has a biohazard sticker, indicating that a biological substance (perhaps blood) might have been spotted on it. This was followed up by an exhibit of the cases from inside a revolver, as well as the knife found in the right side of the motorcycle saddlebag, and a screwdriver. The knife and screwdriver also have biohazard stickers. The prosecution also shows the motorcycle helmet, as well as one sandal Kobzanets collected outside (this also had a biohazard label).

During the cross-examination, the defense once again prods the witness about the distance between the revolver and the victim’s body. Kobzanets guesses the gun was in reach of the victim. [Note: The defense finally gets her answer!]. The cross-examination ends with the defense asking him about a photo he took of the RV outside. She asks what was in the windows of the RV, and he says there were signs with writing. That’s the end of his testimony, though he is subject to recall at the request of the defense. [Note: the defense brought up in her opening statement on day 1 that one of the victims had an argument with her neighbors about the RV shortly before her murder].

Next up is Shola Ogunlana, a Police Evidence Technician working for the Oakland Police Department. She appears to be a middle-aged African-American woman with hair tied in a tight bun on the back of her head. She explains her job. She is not a sworn officer; as an evidence technician, she processes evidence at crime scenes, as well as transports evidence from the Coroner’s Bureau in the case of unnatural deaths. For this particular crime, she was assigned to go to the Coroner’s Bureau for Alameda county in the city of Oakland in order to retrieve and transport evidence. Ogunlana and the prosecutor go through the evidence the former gathered from the Coroner’s Bureau, which includes bullet fragments and DNA blood cards from the victims (blood cards are used to process DNA samples from the victims). There was no cross-examination from the defense.

Next is Christopher Moreno, a former Oakland Police Officer. His appearance is a middle-aged caucasian male with brown hair. He worked for the Oakland Police for 23 years, and served in an intelligence unit for his last 8 years there. He was an expert in outlaw motorcycle gangs, or motorcycle gangs involved in criminal activity. He makes a point to distinguish outlaw motorcycle gangs from motorcycle clubs, the latter of which are not necessarily involved in crime. During his testimony, Moreno is qualified as an expert in outlaw motorcycle gangs. One example of an outlaw motorcycle gang he has extensive familiarity with is the Hells Angels. He explains that some clubs try to mimic the Hells Angels, even if they are technically separate groups. For example, members of a motorcycle club could attend funerals for Hells Angels members or parties at the Hells Angels’ clubhouse.

The questioning then turns to the various tattoos he’s seen associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels. He says that sometimes members of other motorcycle clubs will have Hells Angels tattoos to mimic the Hells Angels, even if they aren’t formally members. One example of such a tattoo is “8–1,” the 8 referring to the 8th letter of the alphabet (which is “H”). Another example is the tattoo “1%” — which, it should be noted, was found on Rivers. This refers back to an incident back in the 1960s, when the American Motorcycle Association made the declaration (in response to criminal activity committed by motorcyclists) that only 1% of motorcycle enthusiasts are involved in crime. Hells Angels, whose members are involved in crime, took this “1%” as a badge of honor. Another tattoo of relevance is “AFFA,” which stands for “Angels Forever, Forever Angels.” He interprets the “DFFD” tattoo found on Rivers as meaning “Deviants Forever, Forever Deviants,” in mimicry of the Hells Angels tattoo (The Deviants was the motorcycle group Rivers was part of).

The prosecution goes on to ask other questions about the behavior of motorcycle groups and gangs. She asks if groups sometimes commit crime to mimic the Angels, and Moreno says “yes.” Moreno also confirms that members of the Angels who leave are required to give up their items, and if they won’t give them back, they could be subject to violence. He also says groups might use violence to instill fear in other groups.

The defense begins her cross-examination by asking questions about Moreno’s experience. He says he’s directly worked with outlaw motorcycle gangs for eight years, and longer more indirectly. He talks about his research on the Deviants. He said he never investigated them before this crime in 2016. When researching them in response to this crime, he was barely able to find anything. He doesn’t remember a Facebook page or any events this group organized. The defense then turns attention to outlaw motorcycle gangs and motorcycle clubs and their relationship with “females.” She asks if it matters whether or not the person with a “1%” tattoo is male or female, and he says he’d assume not. She asks him if the Hells Angels have female members, and he says he doesn’t think so. She asks him if he’s ever investigated a female motorcycle gang prior to 2016, and he says no. [Note: It seems apparent that the defense is trying to downplay Rivers’ propensity to criminality by making him and the motorcycle group he’s associated with seem as “female” as possible. At no point in the trial has anyone mentioned Rivers’ trans status, nor is it clear how many members of the jury know about this].

The prosecution cross-examines by asking Moreno about the names of officers in the Angels Hierarchy. He says stuff like president, vice president, and secretary [Note: Perhaps she’s unsuccessfully trying to find evidence that the term “enforcer,” which Rivers used for himself, comes from the Hells Angels]. She also asks what he would make of an individual with a “1%” tattoo. He says if he saw an individual with this tattoo, he’d be suspicious that said person was involved in criminal activity.

The defense cross-examines with one more question, asking if he was aware of a case of a person leaving Hells Angels or Deviants on good terms. He says no. He leaves the stand, subject to recall.

The final witness of the day is Helena Wong, DNA criminalist. Her appearance is a young-ish Asian-American woman with long loose hair. She has worked for the Oakland Police Department Crime Lab since 2011. She explains that a “criminalist” is the same as a “forensic scientist.” In other words, she is an expert on DNA testing from crime scenes. There is extensive explanation about her vast credentials, and she is qualified as an expert witness in forensic biology in DNA analysis. The rest of her testimony for the day consists of explaining the procedure involved in DNA testing and the peer review process involved in publishing DNA analyses. Her testimony for the day ends with her confirming that she did the DNA testing for this case. The judge declares the end of the week recess; presumably, Wong will be back next Monday to give testimony more specific to this case.

November 10: Sorry I had to take a few days off, and I am hearing from the women reporting from the courtroom that things are backed up. I hope to have more updates from them soon. In the meantime, please follow @AirDhatu on Twitter. She’s doing a much better job than I am keeping up with everything. Here is her latest update thread from the courtroom.

November 3: There will be no court sessions on Fridays.

November 3: Summary of observations from November 1.

Much of the testimony by the police and fire department witnesses today corroborated what was said in the prosecution's opening statement the previous day.

It may not have been noted previously that both attorneys are women: Abigail Mulvihill, Deputy District Attorney, for the Prosecution (P) and Melissa Adams for the Defense (D). They seem to be cordial with each other during breaks and when approaching the bench.

On the witness stand was Officer Sydney Kofford, continuing from the previous day. P asked questions related to Kofford's role in escorting Rivers to Highland Hospital to deal with the cut on Rivers's finger that was bleeding profusely. Hospital staff would not triage the suspect until after a shower due to the very strong smell of gasoline on Rivers's clothing.

Kofford helped Rivers undress for the shower and enumerated the articles of clothing. She noted that some of the pieces of clothing were "very oversized for her petite frame". One of the pieces of clothing had the Deviants Motorcycle Club emblem on it.

Kofford added that Rivers did not want to give her a necklace he was wearing. When Rivers did give it to her, P noticed there was blood or skin on the front of the necklace. Several photos taken at the hospital were shown.

The cut required stitches. The hospital provided layers of hospital gowns for Rivers to wear when leaving the hospital. After going to the police administration building, Kofford then turned Rivers over to another officer, who took him to Santa Rita Jail. During later cross examination, D asked Kofford if any mental health evaluation took place. Kofford said she was not aware of any.

Police and fire personnel involved in the incident and the investigation that followed were then on the witness stand. Rivers was cooperative throughout, according to these witnesses. Their testimony corroborated what was contained in P's opening statement.

Next, Rachel [redacted on request], Charlotte Reed's daughter, was on the witness stand. [Redacted on request.]

Rachel had no siblings until Charlotte was remarried to Patricia Wright. This occurred when Rachel was in middle school. From then, she had two brothers -- Benny Diambu and Khari [redacted on request]. Benny lived full time at the home in Oakland, and Khari split his time between the Dunbar Drive, Oakland home and his dad's home.

Photos of the family were then shown.

Rachel alternated her residence between the Dunbar Drive home and Sherry's San Jose home. When in Oakland, Charlotte would drive her to school every day, occasionally on her motorcycle. Rachel described her relationship with Charlotte as being "very close".

Rachel described an incident where Charlotte and she drove to Just Leather, a store in San Jose, to meet someone from the motorcycle club her mom had joined. The were met there by Rivers, who was apparently there to help Charlotte pick out items related to motorcycling and the club. That person was Rivers.

Rachel said Rivers didn't just suggest or advise Charlotte on what to buy, but "ordered her" to buy certain items, including a leather vest. Over time, Rachel met other members of the club, including Sandra, the president, and her wife. Rachel said she had been around Rivers approximately ten times and considered her an acquaintance.

Rachel stated that after several months, Charlotte decided to leave the Deviants club and started to look for another women's motorcycle club -- one with more women to ride with. She told Rachel she had left the club on good terms but had cut ties with Rivers.

After returning from two months in Hawaii during the summer, Rachel was surprised to see Rivers at the Dunbar Drive house, helping Charlotte fix her truck. P pointed out in cross-examination that since Rachel was gone for two months prior to that, she wouldn't have known if Rivers had been there more often.

Rachel knew Charlotte owned a gun from a time before Rachel was born and that it was kept in a locked box. Rachel said after Charlotte left the Deviants motorcycle club, Charlotte kept the gun nearby -- either on her nightstand or on a TV tray next to her armchair.

Rachel identified in a photograph an iPod that looked like one her brother Benny owned. This item was retrieved from Rivers after the arrest.

One fact that came out in the testimony by the fire captain, Carlos Harvey, was that because the fire was set in an enclosed part of the attached garage, it couldn't spread as it would have if started in the larger area because there wasn't enough oxygen to keep it going.

During the lunch break, a juror asked to be excused as she realized she could not be an impartial juror. After a discussion with the judge et al., they agreed.

November 2: Two updates today.

(1) The October 31 testimony of the neighbor who called 911, Thai Ly. This comes to me via email from a woman who tweets at @BonitasMomToo.

Oct. 31, 2022

Summary of testimony of first Prosecution witness Thai Ly

Direct examination:

Thai Ly is a 39 year old man who, with his fiance, lived across the street from Victims Reed, Reed, and Wright at the time of the murders. He is an auto mechanic and currently lives in Alameda.

His relationship with the victims is very limited, really only to wave and say hello.

Ly describes the neighborhood as a new residential development. He further describes the houses as close, the street narrow and dark at night.

He testifies that on the night of the murder around midnight he was in the master bedroom upstairs - trying to fall asleep - when he heard 2-3 gunshots, after which he left his bed and moved to his master bathroom to look out the window. He describes himself as alert and not groggy when witnessing the events. He saw someone stumbling/wobbling as if they were drunk into the center of the road, and go face down onto the street almost directly in front of his house. He heard no other sounds and saw no one else on the scene. He goes downstairs to get his fiancee, they look out a lower window on the scene and call 9/11. He describes the call. He further describes continuing to watch as the first officer arrives on the scene within around 5-10 minutes, seeing a figure he doesn't recognize taken into custody by police in front of the victims' house, sees smoke coming from the garage of the victims' house, the arrival of the Fire Department, and CPR attempts on the victim in the street.

Cross examination:

Defense establishes that Ly believes the only people who live at the victims' house are two Black women, is unaware of anyone else, does not associate the Black male who was shot with them. Is asked about being aware of the motorcycle at the victim's house or of people who frequent the house - is unaware of either. (Defendant exhibits surprise that witness is unaware of a motorcycle at the house.) Witness is asked about awareness of an older RV owned by victim Reed - yes, he is aware of the RV and that it is parked on a street behind the victims' house. Asked if he had any contact with the victims over the issue of the RV and he states no. Questioning turns to his state the night of the murders - was he "groggy" as he testified at an earlier 2018 hearing or not, as he testified earlier today, insists he was not groggy, and used the word incorrectly at the earlier hearing. His placing of the 9/11 call is gone over as is the times it took for the first arrival of officer on scene. He estimates it took him maybe 5 minutes between hearing the shots and placing the 9/11 call, the call lasting 3-4 minutes, and another 5 minutes before police arrive. Defense establishes that the houses are so close Ly could easily hear neighbors. Witness further describes the neighborhood as a new development within an older, "ghetto" neighborhood. Defense drills down on exactly what he saw that night, asking for further detail and attempts to show inconsistencies between his various testimonies, including one in 2018. Also asks what evidence he was reviewed for his testimony today. Ly replies he reviewed the police body cam footage and the audio of his 9/11 call. Defense asked if he was high, had he smoked pot that morning, Ly says no, he wasn't and doesn't use pot, is asked if he smoked yesterday, and Ly reiterates he does not smoke pot.

Redirect:

Prosecution asks witness to review a photo exhibit of the street scene that includes Benny Reed's body under a covering, has witness confirm he saw a figure stagger out into the street and collapse, and that was the only person he saw at that time.

End of examination, witness is released.

(2) Twitter thread from @AirDhatu regarding the testimony of the second police officer who responded to the call and goes into the testimony of Charlotte Reed’s daughter Rachel. That thread is here.

November 1: I am copying and pasting this exactly as I have it from a woman who was in the courtroom listening to opening statements yesterday. None of this has been fact-checked and it is not an official court report or transcript. The women in the courtroom are doing their absolute best to record what they see and hear and send it to me. Warning: it’s grisly and difficult to read.

State vs. Dana Rivers

Oct 31, 2022

Defendant Dana Rivers appears in the Superior Court of Alameda County. He is wheeled into the Courtroom by guards to the Defendant's table. He is pale, gaunt, with greying, mousey-brown, thin hair parted on the side that is just past shoulder length. He is wearing a thin, white knitted turtleneck, black slacks, and black framed glasses. He is masked with a surgical mask. Judge Patton enters the Courtroom and informs us that a Juror has tested positive for COVID, so is released and an alternative juror is seated.The Jury consists of 6 men and six women. They appear primarily white but there is an African American man, a Muslim women, and an East Asian man. On a table before the Judge's bench is a collection of evidence, including a black motorcycle helmet and large binder of evidence photos. There are spectators, from the sign-in sheet primarily from the DA's office, though some who appears to be family members of the victims, and a few spectators taking notes are also present.The Judge gives his Jury instructions - included is admonishments they cannot hold race, religion, gender and gender identity against the Defendant, and also that they cannot factor in that the Defendant is currently in a wheelchair. During the proceedings, Rivers watches all the videos, looks at all the crime scene photos, pays attention to all the witnesses testimony. While his Defense attorney gives her remarks he can be seen with raised eyebrows, and occasionally very subtly nods affirmatively.

The following is a paraphrased account of the opening statements. Where there are quotes they are direct.

Prosecutor Abigail Mulvihill's Opening Statement

Just after midnight on Nov. 11, 2016, shots were heard by Thai Ly, a neighbor of the victims. This neighbor went to their bathroom window and saw a Black male, wearing pajama bottoms and no shirt, stumble into the middle of the street in front of his house and collapse face down. (At this point Prosecutor shows an image of victims Wright, Reed, and Benny Reed together, says a little about Benny's history.) Ly calls 9/11 and watches as an officer arrives on the scene within minutes. The officer arrives alone, the street is dark and quiet. He comes across the body of Benny Reed.(picture of Reed from the crime scene is shown, he is face down on a street, has no shirt on and pajama bottoms.) He has a chest wound from a 45 caliber gun. Body camera footage from the first officer on the scene will show Defendant exiting the front door of the victims' house wearing a black motorcycle helmet (belonging to victim Reed) with blood on it, bloody blue latex gloves, & a bloody leather vest (also belonging to victim Reed). He is ordered by the officer to get on the ground.

(We now see video without audio from the responding officer's body cam. It shows a very dark street with a scattering of streetlights. A flashlight is quickly moving around the area; house, windows, & vehicles are seen.This goes on for more than a minute. The flashlight then focuses on a figure in front of a house- just beyond the front door, and we see this figure take off a black motorcycle helmet and raise their hands in the air while looking around and speaking. The figure is Defendant Dana Rivers.) There was smoke coming from the garage, and it's noted by officers that Rivers smelled of gasoline. On Rivers was found a bloody screwdriver, multiple knives, and 38 specials live rounds - these will be important. Jurors will see that a Colt 1911 pistol with a silencer and aftermarket markings was found at the scene and that the Defendant has a tattoo of that exact weapon with the special marks and the words "Do not lie to me fucker". (Prosecutor shows a photos of the pistol with silencer found at he scene and Rivers' black & white tattoo which shows an identical pistol with silencer and marks.)Officers entered the house to clear it room by room and find the bodies of two females in the upstairs master bedroom. Wright was found on the floor, face down at the foot of the bed. She had been shot twice, once in the chest and once in the back, she had also been stabbed in the back. Reed was laying on her back, at the edge of the of the foot of the bed with her feet on the ground. She had been shot twice - once in the chest and once in the shoulder. She had also been stabbed over 40 times in the face, neck, & upper torso. Next to one of her hands was a 38 caliber revolver that was her gun that had her blood on it and was used against her. (Prosecutor shows a images of the master bedroom crime seen. Both female victims are in a state of partial dress, and there is a large amount of blood both on the floor and especially the bed where victim Reed is laying. Reed's hands are above her head and a black gun can be seen near one of her hands on the bed.)Meanwhile the fire had been contained to the garage. Upon later examination a gas container was found in the garage, and an investigation determined the fire was started intentionally.(Prosecutor shows various evidence images.) Defendant was attempting to flee on victim Reed's motorcycle that was parked on the sidewalk in front of the house. In the motorcycle saddle bags were found a lighter, blue latex gloves, and a bloody knife used in the murders. The motorcycle also had blood on it.This was an assassination. The plan included taking out any witnesses. Defendant wanted to take everything important from Reed.(Prosecutor tells the history of River's and Reeds relationship.)Reed and Rivers met via the Veterans Affairs. They became friends, and Reed was invited to join Rivers' all-female motorcycle club, The Deviants. The club was River's total life, and he was referred to within it as "The Enforcer", a designation he enjoyed. Joining the club was a very big deal, which included acquiring gear and receiving a special club patch. After a period of time, Reed became uncomfortable being in the club, left, and distanced herself from Rivers. Rivers later began to ingratiate himself with Reed in an attempt to get back into her life and regain her trust. The night before the murders Rivers was at the victims' home and he texted his wife that "P knows where I am." - "P" is the President of The Deviants. This was a hit."Evil exists in this world and it is sitting at that table."End of Prosecutor's Opening StatementDefense Attorney Adams' Opening Statement

"What the hell happened?"

There are a series of unanswered questions. What happened in that house? We agree on a lot: a family was killed. Was it tragic? Yes. Was there a fire? Yes. You'll hear from police, FBI, witnesses, but this case is about what you won't hear. Yes, they were friends, yes, they belonged to the same motorcycle club, yes, the club was The Deviants -- sounds scary, tattoos, tough bad-ass women. But Officer Moreno will testify that it is a ladies' club, not criminal, middle-aged women, just Mom's raising kids.

When Reed left The Deviants, she went looking for others clubs. Daughter Rachel will talk about Reed having more & more troubled days, and that Reed had an emotional day before the murders, where an altercation with a neighbor about an ongoing issue over an RV Reed had almost resulted in Reed getting tased.

What happened the night of the murder? There is a four hour time-frame from the time Rivers and Reed returned to the house together that night and the time police were called. There are no witnesses to what happened, no direct evidence about what happened. Yes, witnesses saw what they say, yes, saw and observed Rivers exit the home. But the first officer at the scene heard the sound of breaking glass coming from the back of the house, and wondered if anyone else was there. Statements from Rivers made to police may be confusing, unclear.

There is no evidence of registration of the the pistol with the silencer, or that it belonged to Rivers, just a tattoo. the 1911 is not an uncommon gun. This gun was determined to be faulty, incapable of firing multiple shots, only a single shot before malfunctioning. It has

Property of the US Army on it, Rivers was in the Navy. Unknown DNA was found on it.The gun Reed was shot with was her own gun, and had only her DNA on it; Wright was also shot with Reed's gun. The faulty 1911 that is connected to Benny's death has 2 DNA samples not associated with anyone involved with this case, including the Defendant. You'll hear that investigators don't know what injuries happened first, or exactly when. There is unknown DNA on the open back slider.

Defendant did have a significant cut on his finger, one that deposited his blood in many locations around the house but there was none of his blood on the firearms.

I am trusting you to pay attention to the evidence, that they will be unable to meet the burden of proof.

What the hell happened?

End of Defense's Opening Statement

November 1: From now on, I am going to do my best to provide updates in chronological order, with the most recent update on top. Please keep in mind that none of this information is coming from the court itself. There are literally three women sitting in the courtroom, reporting their observations to me via Twitter DM and email. None of this has been fact-checked. I am hesitating to report for that reason, but I have decided that since women want updates, it is better to report what I can with the clear understanding that none of it is official information. It’s just women sitting in the courtroom, reporting their observations to me. The women have worked out a schedule where they hope to be able to have at least one woman in the courtroom for every day of the trial. They will report their observations to me as they can. For the record, this entire situation strikes me as absolutely unbelievable. It is a triple homicide of a lesbian couple and their teenage son and there has been no reporting of the actual trial since the jury was empaneled.

One woman reports that during its opening statement, the defense made NO MENTION of an insanity defense. The defense appears to be attempting, instead, to persuade the jury that the murders were committed by someone other than Rivers.

Here are some comments from another one of the women in the courtroom: “It was enraging to sit in that courtroom and hear Dana Rivers being referred to as a women. Listening to the prosecution describe a grisly, bloody murder where Ms. Reid had so many stab wounds to the face I could feel my blood pressure rise with each “she.”This is erasure of male violence towards women. This is where “preferred pronouns” lead us.”

That’s all I have for now.

 State v. Dana Rivers

Case Number: 16-CR-014089

Women want justice for the victims of this horrific crime against lesbians and young people. We are anxious to get information and frustrated by the lack of media attention. On March 22, 2021, I learned that the next court event in the case is scheduled for March 25, 2021. I am now in contact with the prosecuting attorney in the matter.

My aim here is to do my best to provide as much up-to-date information as possible, and you are welcome to check back any time. I will not be able to respond to individual emails about the case.

CASE SUMMARY:

Dana Rivers was born David Warfield. In 1999, he claimed that he was a woman and underwent surgery to persuade others that he was, in fact, a woman. At the time, he was a high school teacher. He openly discussed his fetish with his teenage students and was subsequently fired. He sued, and the case settled.

Just after midnight on November 11, 2016, police received reports about gunshots being fired at a home on Dunbar Drive, in Oakland, California. When they responded, they found Rivers drenched in blood and running from the doorway of the house. He was in possession of knives, ammunition, and metal knuckles. The house was on fire. Inside the house, the police found two women whose bodies were riddled with bullets and stab wounds. They also found a young man laid out in front of the house who had been shot to death. Rivers has been charged with numerous serious and violent offenses, including murder and arson.

The victims: Patricia Wright and Charlotte Reed, a married lesbian couple, and Toto Diambu (known as Benny Diambu-Wright), their 19-year-old son.

Previously, Rivers had been active in “Camp Trans,” a campaign against the rights of lesbians to hold the women-only annual festival called “Michfest” on private land (the last official Michfest occurred in 2015). Patricia and Charlotte were regular attendees at Michfest.

BASIC CASE INFORMATION:

Public court calendar:

1. Go to http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Pages.aspx/Calendars.

2. Scroll to Criminal and click on Odyssey Portal Calendar Search.

3. Enter the case number (above). That is the only search term needed.

Public inmate locator:

1. Go to: https://www.acgov.org/sheriff_app/.

2. Enter First Name Dana and Last Name Rivers. Those are the only search terms needed.

3. Enter the code that you see in the box.

4. Click Find Inmate.

UPDATES:

March 23, 2021: Requested original police report from Oakland Police Department. Received notice that the request was forwarded to the Homicide Division.

March 23, 2021: Spoke with prosecuting attorney. Rivers has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The case has been significantly delayed because of the pandemic. Mental health experts have been reluctant to visit Rivers in the jail due to health concerns. However, the court finally found a mental health expert to examine Rivers and report on the merits of the insanity defense and on Rivers’s competence to stand trial. The purpose of the March 25 hearing is to receive and address the report. Depending on the contents of the report, one side or the other may request time to hire an independent expert. It is still unclear whether Rivers is being held in the female wing of the jail, but it IS clear that the county inmate locator has him classified as female, so it is probably reasonable to assume that he is. The prosecuting attorney confirmed that I can follow up with him after the March 25 hearing.

March 24, 2021: Spoke with the victim advocate, who will put me on the list that she maintains of people who receive regular updates.

March 29, 2021: Rivers’s last court appearances was on Thursday March 25. At that hearing, the court was scheduled to receive a mental health report regarding the merits of the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense. That did not happen. Instead, the court scheduled a new court appearance for April 8 to receive the report. During the March 25 hearing, the prosecution requested that the court schedule a trial date. The court did not do that, but indicated that it would do so during the April 8th hearing.

April 9, 2021: Three new dates have been set: (1) Disposition and Setting June 3, 2021 (last opportunity to reach a plea agreement); (2) Readiness September 30, 2021 (assess readiness for trial); (3) TRIAL October 4, 2021. It is possible that the Court will schedule an additional hearing between June and September, if only to assess readiness for trial. The trial date could always be moved if either of the parties aren’t ready. Also, the parties are not yet in possession of the examiner’s mental health assessment. As noted above, Rivers has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and the Court appointed a mental health examiner to assess the soundness of that argument. The prosecuting attorney expects to see a copy of the assessment today.

June 3, 2021: The court set another court date (July 8, 9:30 a.m. Pacific), this time for receipt of the doctor’s report. Previously, Rivers had pled insanity and the court had ordered a doctor to repair a report concerning the viability of that claim. We are still waiting for it. The trial is still scheduled for October 4, 2021, for now. That could change.

July 8, 2021: The court still has not received the medical report. The court has set another date of August 26. The trial is still scheduled for October 4, for now. That could change.

August 31, 2021: The court STILL has not received the medical report. The court has set another date of October 21, 2021 to receive it.

The trial had previously been scheduled for October 4, but if the next court date is October 21, to review a medical report, the trial must have been postponed. I have contacted the prosecutor and the victim advocate to request a status update on the trial date and any additional information they can provide and have not heard back. It would be inadvisable to speculate as to what this might mean, but I will keep checking the court calendar and post a notice if I hear back from the prosecutor. I’m sorry I don’t have better news.

October 21, 2021: The hearing has been continued AGAIN, this time until December 16, 2021, and AGAIN for the receipt of the doctor’s report. I have reached out to the prosecutor AGAIN and received no response. I am not aware of any more effective way to find out what is going on, because none of the information is available publicly, and there is STILL nothing illuminating in the media. If you have contacts in the area media (SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, etc.), please ask them to ask around. If a local investigative reporter could poke around the courthouse, the jail, ANYTHING, to find out what is happening, that might help. I will post a notice if I hear back from the prosecutor this time. I’m sorry I don’t have anything better to report.

December 16, 2021: The hearing has been continued yet again, this time until January 13, 2022, and yet again for the receipt of the doctor’s report. I never heard back from either the prosecutor or the victim advocate since the October update, which is odd, because both used to be very responsive to email messages. I have contacted a criminal law professor in the Bay Area who I know personally to see if he has any media contacts willing to investigate. I’m sorry I don’t have better news.

January 13, 2022: The court had a hearing and set three new court dates: Receipt of doctor report 2-8-22. Readiness 7-7-22. Jury trial 7-11-22. This does not mean the trial will necessarily start on that day. It could get continued again. The court still does not seem to have the medical report on insanity/competence.

February 17, 2022: The court STILL has not received the Doctor’s report, the purpose of which is to assess Rivers’s competence to stand trial and also the state of his mental health at the time of the offense (his plea is not guilty by reason of insanity). To the best of my knowledge, the dates of the readiness hearing and the jury trial have not changed. They are, at the moment, still scheduled for July 2022.

July 18, 2022: The prosecutor’s office finally got back to me and I spoke with them a few days ago. They informed me that the medical report STILL had not been submitted and the trial was going postponed AGAIN until October. I did not update this page with that information because I did not have documentation of it from the court. I have since received documentation that yes, the trial has again been postponed. The prosecutor’s office tells me that this is relatively normal, that a new doctor had been appointed, and there are still COVID-related reasons why it is hard to get in and out of the jail. I have no obvious reason to suspect that there is anything more nefarious than that going on. The trial is currently scheduled for October 10, 2022. That could change again.

October 10, 2022: TRIAL IS STARTING TODAY.

October 11, 2022: Trial continued to the 17th, 18th, and 19th. Go to www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Pages.aspx/Live-Stream for possible remote access to the proceedings.