The court suggested Gindes question Ms. Darling about her concern over Christine's care and safety, since that did not connote any threat of kidnapping, and indicated it was also proper for Ms. Darling to have discussed with Christine Cliffy's and Clovette's possible hiding place.
Eyherabide then requested that the court admonish the jury that the evidence about information received by Ms. Darling relative to Clovette or Cliffy, was not being admitted for the truth of such evidence, but only to explain the contact between Ms. Darling and Christine. The court replied, "I think that's patently obviously [sic] as to why it's coming in. Request denied."
When the jury returned, Gindes carefully questioned Ms. Darling about her contacts with Christine during the time Brad Darling and Gindes were *780 in Oklahoma, whether at the time she decided she had to do something about Christine's care and safety, and whether she contacted Christine for that purpose. After questioning regarding other contacts between Ms. Darling and Christine during the course of the various preliminary examinations, the following occurred:
"Q [by Gindes] NOW, I WANT TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK I GOT SLOPPY, AND I DIDN'T COVER THIS BEFORE. BUT DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU FIRST MET CHRISTINE, HAVING A CONTACT WITH HER THAT INVOLVED GOING OUT TO LUNCH WITH HER?
"A [by Carol Darling] YES.
"Q COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
"A IT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST CONTACTS WITH HER, BUT I ALREADY KNEW HER, SO IT WAS PROBABLY MY SECOND OR MY THIRD, AND SHE WAS IN MY OFFICE AND IT WAS APPROACHING THE LUNCH HOUR, AND SHE WAS IN FOSTER CARE, AND I ASKED HER IF SHE WAS HUNGRY, IF SHE WANTED TO GO TO LUNCH. WE TALKED ABOUT GOING TO LUNCH TOGETHER. I TOLD HER THAT I WASN'T A BRAVE PERSON AND THAT IF SHE WAS IN ANY DANGER OR KNEW OF ANYONE THAT WANTED TO HURT HER, THEN I COULD TAKE MY HUSBAND AND HE COULD GO WITH US, IF THAT IS WHAT SHE WANTED, OR WE COULD GO BY OURSELVES. SHE SAID, `I THINK YOU BETTER TAKE YOUR HUSBAND.' SO MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF AND CHRISTINA WENT TO LUNCH.
"MR. RUBIN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. MOVE TO STRIKE FURTHER, I THINK IT TOTALLY VIOLATES WHAT THE COURT ORDERED.
"MR. GINDES: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, THIS IS 356 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE.
"THE COURT: OBJECTION OVERRULED.
"BY MR. GINDES:
"Q SO THAT WAS REALLY WHEN YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION, THIS WAS WAY BEFORE YOU [sic] WENT TO BOSWELL?
"A SHE WAS STILL IN FOSTER CARE."
*781 (25) As stated in People v. Weiss (1958) 50 Cal.2d 535, 554 [327 P.2d 527]: "`Efforts to suppress testimony against himself indicate a consciousness of guilt on the part of a defendant, and evidence thereof is admissible against him. [Citation.] Generally, evidence of the attempt of third persons to suppress testimony is inadmissible against a defendant where the effort did not occur