Let me ask this question. You didn't receive it before charges were filed, did you? >> No, I received it before charges were filed. >> Had you provided it to the DAs before charges were filed? >> Um it would have been attached to my report. >> Are you sure about that? >> I'm I'm not sure, no. >> Okay. My understanding is that you did not receive the report you had discussed what was in the report, but you had not received it. Does that ring a bell? >> Your I I object facts not in evidence. I don't know that that's a correct statement. >> You can answer the question. Do you recall? >> I I'm I'm maybe misunderstanding your question. When did I review the the nurse's report? >> you receive the actual report from the same nurse? >> I don't know the exact date. I don't remember. >> Okay. Do you know if it was before or after charges were filed? >> Before. >> Do you know when you provided it to the DA's office? >> I don't recall when I added it to the report. >> Okay. Could that have been after charges were filed? >> Yes. >> Stop objecting to this. I'm just going to see if he knows based on some of her statements. >> Okay. >> Let me ask you this. You may or may not know. I've got the report if you need to see it. Um there's various interviews with the alleged victim. Um she ultimately says, if I'm understanding her interviews correctly, that Parker performed oral sex on her, and that was consensual. >> Correct. >> And during your forensic interview, she denies uh performing oral sex on him. >> Uh I don't recall if she denied or didn't remember. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it from my understanding it didn't it wasn't it was only him performing oral sex on her. >> All right. In the sexual assault nurse examination report, as you're aware, the examiner goes through very detailed questions with we'll call him a patient at that point, correct? >> And one of those it it's talking about all contact, genitalia, mouth, anus, >> Yes. >> all the things. Um, and when re and as a sexual assault nurse examiner is interviewing the patient, they're basically doing check marks. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Or contemporaneously filling this out, correct? >> Correct. >> And in this, there is a question was there a contact with patient's mouth? So, patient would be alleged victim. >> Right. >> And penis genitals is marked yes. Correct? >> Yes. >> So, that seems to say at least on February 27th, while undergoing the examination, she admits that there was oral sex both ways. >> Your honor, I I'd object. I mean, that that's a conclusion based upon a check mark. We don't have the same nurse here to testify what that even means. >> Sustain. This witness can't testify what the check mark means. >> Okay, but you'll agree there's that check mark. >> Correct. >> All right. Um through this investigation, so you found those text messages between Kale and Parker, correct? >> Correct. >> And there is this as the prosecutor has already said, there's this conversation about crack, crack, and cracked. >> Correct. >> Um and you never interviewed Kael until after this case is filed, correct? >> Correct. >> And when you interview Kael, Kael says, "No, that's not our interpretation of it. It can mean anything from making out to other things." Correct? >> Uh it was his interpretation of the word. >> Right. And he's the one using it with Parker. >> Correct. >> And have you ever looked into all the memes and Tik Toks and all those things about cracked? >> Yeah, I I attempted to find the original where it came from. Um from what I gathered, uh it means to have sexual intercourse. >> But there's plenty of memes and things about it that aren't sexual intercourse, right? >> And fair to say as an investigator, for example, um someone like Kael who's um part of the LDS Church and never had sex, um maybe his version of using this term is different. >> I'm going to object. Sustained. What Kael thinks and how he's using the term is something to ask Kael, not this detective. >> Well, he did ask Kael. That's what I'm asking. So, Kael told you >> I I'd object to and and and and move to strike the the statements about Kael being LDS, Kael not having sex. That's completely that that's those are facts not in evidence. >> Those are stricken. Did you ask Kael what he thought cracked meant? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay, what did he say? >> Uh he said it could mean essentially anything, doing anything with a girl. >> Thank you. You can move on now, Ms. Tangaro. >> All right, at this time I'm actually going to introduce our 1102 statement from Kale. >> Any objection to the court receiving >> I need to redact. >> and admitting that 1102 statement subject to redaction. >> No, your honor. >> Okay. >> All right, I'll come back to that information. Let's talk though just going back to the text messages uh between Kale and Parker. It's clear from those text messages that there is an attempt to plan a double date with these two girls, right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And that's earlier in the day, right? >> Correct. >> And they're talking you've got Kale and Parker talking about should we go bowling? Should we go to ice cream? All these things about where they might do a double date, correct? >> Correct. >> And that other girl is the girl that would have been home that night during this alleged event. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I'm not going to name her for obvious reasons. Um but there's back and forth back and forth and then there's clear from these text messages that particularly the other girl, the roommate, is being a little non-communicative. >> Um Yes, I I it from what I gathered she had was at another party or something at the when they were trying to set up the date or during the time that they were supposed to be on the date. I I'd have to review the messages again. >> Okay. And then as the messages go on and it's getting later, it's sort of becomes clear that Kale and other girl are probably out. >> Correct. >> But alleged victim and Parker might be on. >> Correct. >> And in fact, at some point alleged victim just sends Parker her address. >> Uh that's what he told Kale. >> Right. >> I I don't have that that interaction of her sending >> part of the text message. >> of the text message. Yes, ma'am. >> And then, um you know, based on these text messages, you know the exact timing of everything cuz there's timestamps on them, correct? Between Kale and Parker. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And in fact, um there's a Parker, even when he has the address, is saying, "I don't know if I'm going to go. Should I go?" Bro, that type of thing, right? >> And then, you have a text message in here that says, "5 minutes out." >> Correct. >> And so, we know from this that Parker arrives at that location at about 1:30 a.m. >> Correct. Yeah, roughly. >> When the alleged victim is initially giving her interview, she puts it earlier in the night, right? >> I believe so, yes. >> she says 11:45 or 12. >> Sure. >> Okay. But we know, based on this, it's 1:30 a.m. >> Correct. >> All right. And then, we also know, based on these texts, that Parker left at about 3:30 a.m. >> Correct. >> All right. So, let's I want to go through taking sort of everything we know, um from various interviews, and make sure we understand at least what one version of events is. >> Okay. >> So, Parker shows up at 1:30 a.m. >> Correct. >> There's a brief interaction between Parker and the roommate. >> Yes. >> Parker and the alleged victim go up to her bedroom. >> Correct. >> Uh there's a TV in her bedroom. >> Correct. >> According to the alleged victim, and I want to get her timeline. Um Want to make sure I have this correct. Because she says that they ended up interacting for quite a while. I think it's almost an hour. Does that sound about right? >> Uh if I recall, I can check my report, but yeah, if I recall it was >> going to get my notes. My I've got to switch screens. >> Yeah, my report says uh she said he arrived between 11:00 p.m. and midnight. They talked for about an hour and then watched a movie. >> Okay. So, I've got went upstairs and talked for 30 minutes. Watched a movie for an hour. And then engaged in some type of sexual activity for an hour. >> Uh I Yeah, I mean, I'd have to go back and look to verify those times, but >> Let me Do you have that 11:02 somewhere? Yeah. Let me see it.