United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL
Source:
From The Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165
Published: Jun 2, 2017
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 119193
Comments: 422
Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-291) not displayed.
.
.
.
#292. To: A K A Stone (#291)
Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?
When did you say he collected the socks? I couldn't hear you. I am still waiting for you to identify what evidence, produced at the criminal trial, would have justified a jury verdict of guilty. I the mean time I will keep posting testimonial evidence showing perjury and planting of evidence.
This is not about whether OJ did it or not. It is about whether the prosecution in the criminal trial produced evidence that would have justified the jury returning a verdict of guilty. Perjury and planted evidence don't get it. I could not get a straight answer to the question of when the socks were collected, so I am providing the testimony of when they were collected and how the collection was recorded. I have only just started on that. There is more to come.
They were cashmere lined.
You just donot want to engage on when the magic socks were collected. Dennis Fung, 11 April 1995, Cross examination by Barry Scheck Note that Fung testifies to the collection of Item 12, downstairs, at 4:30 or thereabouts, recorded as 4:30, before he and Mazzola proceeded upstairs to continue collecting evidence, the first piece of evidence collected upstairs being Item 13, the socks, at an unrecorded time, and then Item 14 recorded at 4:40. A: YES. Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 -MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON? A: YES. Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS? A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE? A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30? A: YES. Q: AND - A: OR THEREABOUTS. Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS? A: YES. Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM? A: YES. Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40? A: YES. Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40? A: ABOUT THEN, YES. Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05? A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK.
I will continue to present actual testimonial evidence on the magic socks, and then move on to the magic blood drops on the side of the Bronco. You have said there is no evidence of planting. I am feeding you the evidence. Andrea Mazzola, 20 April 2017, Direct examination by Hank Goldberg Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.) In recording a collection time, Andrea Mazzola recalled that she just glanced at her watch for the time. Andrea Mazzola testified she personally did the physical swatching on Item 12 in the downstairs foyer, and personally recorded the time of collection in her own handwriting. And, MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14. Ms. Mazzola testified that Item 14 was collected at 1640 (4:40 pm) and the collection time was reflected as such in her notes. It does not appear that Hank Goldberg bother to ask about the collection time of Item 12 on direct, but Peter Neufeld filled in the gap on cross. As for Ms. Mazzola on cross by Peter Neufeld, she testified about the time of collection of Item 12: MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes. MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that? MS. MAZZOLA: 1630. MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon. MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30. That is 1630, or 4:30 p.m., prior to proceeding upstairs to continue evidence collection with Item 13, the socks. I will provide a substantial excerpt of that cross examination shortly. Ms. Mazzola continued. In this section, Ms. Mazzola provides testimonial evidence of who collected the Rockingham socks, and the time of collection. For identification purposes, Item #13 was the magic socks. MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left? MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what would you have done with the gloves that you had been wearing at the Bundy location when you left? MS. MAZZOLA: They were taken off and put in the trash bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left, did you do the same evidence inventory procedure that you've described? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have--are you--do you have an independent recollection of exactly where that took place? MS. MAZZOLA: Not an exact recollection. I have an idea where it took place, but I can't be absolutely positive. MR. GOLDBERG: Was it outdoors? MS. MAZZOLA: It was outdoors, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us in terms of being towards the front of the Bundy location? By that, I mean the Bundy side or to the rear towards the alley side? MS. MAZZOLA: It was up front. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do. MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized. MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet. MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540. MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40? MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40. MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's? MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting. MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what? MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And this first item was stain no. 11? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Which was on which side of the house? MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the side of the house near the garage, on that end of the house. MR. GOLDBERG: That little narrow walkway area? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And that's outdoors? MS. MAZZOLA: That's outdoors. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to some testimony at the Griffen hearing on page 758. Well, actually 757, line 25 through 758, line 4. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry? What lines? MR. GOLDBERG: Line 25 and 758 to line 4. THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Neufeld? MR. NEUFELD: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: At the Griffen hearing, did you give the following answers to the following questions? "Question: And what time did you get back to Rockingham was it? "Answer: Right around 4 o'clock, somewhere in there. "Question: How do you know it was about 4 o'clock? "Answer: Because of the time that is noted that we collected the sample in the foyer." Do you remember giving that testimony? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So was this testimony that you got back there at 4 o'clock correct? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you testify that way? MS. MAZZOLA: Because I was--just had a chance to glance at the notes as I was testifying. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to read you another passage that occurred just previously to that on page 757. MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, it's lines 12 through 15. 757, 12 through 15. THE COURT: Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Just previously to that, did you give the following answer to this question? "Question: So as soon as you got back to Rockingham, the first thing that you did was walk inside and lift item no. 12? "Answer: After it was photographed." Do you recall that? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: So was item no. 12 in fact the first item that you collected? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: So why did you think that item no. 12 was the first thing that you collected and that it was at 4 o'clock? MS. MAZZOLA: Because as I said, I was just going off of the notes. I didn't have time to go through them and refresh my memory and I looked at the wrong line. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you--didn't you see no. 11 at that time when you were testifying at the Griffen hearing and looking over the crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But based upon the crime scene identification checklist, was item no. 11 in fact the first stain that you collected in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection on that? MS. MAZZOLA: I did. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you in fact collect a stain no. 12 in the foyer area of Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we can see People's 169, which is the interior Rockingham map. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Can you see this, Miss Mazzola? Directing your attention to the photographs on this exhibit that are labeled with photograph numbers--photograph no. 12 and the call out line, do those depict where this item was collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does. MR. GOLDBERG: And this was the first interior item? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection in terms of the swatching of this item? MS. MAZZOLA: I did. MR. GOLDBERG: Was Mr. Fung watching you on this item? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, he was. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after collecting this item from the foyer area, where did you go in the location? MS. MAZZOLA: We started making our way upstairs looking as we were going for any items of evidence. MR. GOLDBERG: So you collected downstairs first before going upstairs? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And when you got upstairs, did you go to the master bedroom area of the house? MS. MAZZOLA: We did go there. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see the item that's contained in photographs 13? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did. MR. GOLDBERG: And where were they? MS. MAZZOLA: They were at the foot of the master bedroom bed. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you also see the item that's depicted in the photographs that are labeled 14? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did. MR. GOLDBERG: And what are you doing in this photograph? MS. MAZZOLA: That- MR. GOLDBERG: Photograph that shows you holding a q-tip. MS. MAZZOLA: That is a simple presumptive test for blood. MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the phenolphtalein test? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you look closely at that photograph, in the upper right-hand corner, you can see that there is some clothing on the ground. Can you see that? It's right behind the shower door. No. The one that has you doing the presumptive test. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: The one that has photograph no. 14. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall how that clothing got there? MS. MAZZOLA: One of the detectives was looking through the clothing. MR. GOLDBERG: Was that while you and criminalist Fung were in this master bathroom, master bedroom area? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was. MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to this detective looking at this item, where was the clothing? MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing was in a clothes hamper. You can't really see that. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's fine. You can resume the witness stand. MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you. MR. GOLDBERG: So when the detective took the items out of the hamper, did he ever put them back in the hamper that you saw or did he just leave them on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he put them back or not. MR. GOLDBERG: But he did--but he did take them out and put them on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You can take that down. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how the towels got on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence? MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes? MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. (Brief pause.) MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up. MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14. MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13? MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung. MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640. THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes. MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14? MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14. MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question. THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify? MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim-- THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again. MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's- MR. SCHECK: What do you want to do? Maybe we won't have any objection. Just tell us what you want to do. MR. GOLDBERG: I was just going to ask her when 15 and 16 were collected, not ask what they were. MR. NEUFELD: We have no objection. THE COURT: Just that one question. MR. GOLDBERG: I should have brought the transcript up with me, but there's some inconsistent statements she makes regarding when she left the location. She thought it was shortly after 5:00, and it's based on the time of the collection of 15 and 16. There's reference in that transcript to collectively 15 and 16, the airline ticket. My proposal would be simply not to read that, redact that out. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Does the transcript--Hank, does the transcript refer to where it was collected from though? MR. GOLDBERG: Uh-uh. I don't think it does. MR. NEUFELD: I mean- MR. GOLDBERG: If it does, if it refers to anything else- MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm saying it's fine to bring out the location. In fact, just to take care of it now, if you don't bring it out, we will bring it out later on. Just items were collected in the bathroom and items were collected on the bench outside the front door. THE COURT: Okay. If they have no objection. MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. I mean if it wasn't suppressed, it wasn't suppressed. But if it were suppressed, it's suppressed. THE COURT: No. What happened was, there was an agreement the People were not going to offer it rather than it being suppressed. But the objection has to be made by the Defense to suppress it or otherwise keep it out. If they have no objection, then I assume we can talk about it. MR. NEUFELD: It's basically our decision--frankly, the way it was brought out on two separate occasions by the People as part of their direct case created an impression upon the jurors now there's something we're trying to hide rather. So it's only under that kind of pressure that we feel compelled to, you know, simply say where those items were. THE COURT: Keep your voice down. But it's a tactical decision on your part. So if that's your decision, that's fine with me. MR. SCHECK: In terms of the location and the item numbers. THE COURT: Right. Location and item numbers. That's correct. And then you intend on going into time and we're agreed you will just read the part that says item 15 and 16, not what they are, correct? MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. May I just have one moment? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Done. (The following proceedings were held in open court:) THE COURT: These are the most educational sidebars so far. All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected? MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the location of where, using your crime scene identification checklist, these two items were located, just the location? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: First of 15 and then of 16. MS. MAZZOLA: 15 was collected in a downstairs bathroom trash can, 16 was collected from a bench outside the front door. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to show you another tape that we've marked as People's 186 and then I'm going to ask you some questions about it. If you'd take a look at it. THE COURT: Is this from Rockingham? MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. It's the beta tape from Rockingham. (At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.) MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11. MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing? MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time? MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits. MR. GOLDBERG: And what are your kits? MS. MAZZOLA: They are two cases that contain things we need to pick up evidence, package it at the scene. MR. GOLDBERG: Do those contain all of your packaging materials? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they do. MR. GOLDBERG: And in addition to the bags, the brown paper bags that we've seen, what other kinds of packaging materials do you have? MS. MAZZOLA: Plastics, bags, coin envelopes of varying sizes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at this point in time, those items are being placed in the rear of the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And would this have been after you did the inventory for the afternoon items? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where physically that inventory took place? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know for sure, no. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. THE COURT: All right. Just for the record, that's 17:11 actually and 50 seconds because there's a lot in between. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If you could just stop for another second. So this is 17:11:57:02 that we're looking at. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you just lock the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: So at this time, where is all of the evidence that was collected from the morning at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And all of the evidence that was collected at Bundy? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the evidence that was collected in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. If we could stop for just a second. I have another-- I have a question. MR. GOLDBERG: And the crime scene identification checklist that we've been referring to, where is that at this time as you and Mr. Fung are walking away from the- MS. MAZZOLA: That is also on the back of the truck.
But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right?
That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time. Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond.
OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point?
The gloves were lined with cashmere. Shapiro admitted he tried the glove on earlier. That could have torn the lining. Darden said, "I think Johnnie (Cochran) tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove."
Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA?
Scanned for DNA? I thought you said "dust for prints".
Well what do you think they dust for?
Fingerprints.
But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right? Oh noes! You caught me in a typo. The transcript I provided did not contain my typo. In case you are still befuddled, here it is repeated from the transcript. [excerpts from transcript at my #297] MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left? MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham. [...] MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so.
[misterwhite #299] Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond. [misterwhite #300] OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point? Very well, I will proceed consistent withy your representation that you have read all the testimony, and the socks were collected between 16:30 and 16:40. Fung and Mazzola testified that they collected Item #12 downstairs at 4:30, before proceeding upstairs. Where were the magic socks at 4:13? That's fifteen to twenty-five minutes before Fung went upstairs, discovered the black socks on the white carpet in the master bedroom, and collected them. The collection time is very relevant. The videographer clearly testified that the socks were not there when he walked across the carpet, stood at the foot of the bed, and videoed the master bedroom at 4:13 p.m., according to the auto time record of his video recording. He also testified that he left the location at 4:30 p.m. as verified by the crime scene log maintained by the police. The magic socks were not there for videographer Willie Ford at 4:13, but for Mr. Fung between 4:30 and 4:40, they appeared. When they appeared, they contained an impossible amount of EDTA for circulating blood in a human, and there was a compression stain that went from one outer surface to the inner surface to the opposite inner surface to the opposite outer surface. It could not have been done with a foot in the sock, or by blood spatter. The socks were a great help for the defense, not the prosecution. Sanction hearings for discovery failure regarding the tape were held on 3/31, 4/3, and 4/4, and the prosecution fairy tale was rejected and they were sanctioned. Also, the tape, and testimony about the tape, were grossly inconsistent with the assertions under oath of Det. Vanatter to claim probable cause for a June 28 search warrant to seize the pair of gloves that had been found and allegedly inadvertently left at Rockingham. Willie Ford, 19 July 1995, reviewing the videotape he recorded at Rockingham. (advance to 34m 40s) OJ Simpson Trial - July 19th, 1995 - Part 3 (Last part) Willie Ford, 19 July 1995: MR. DARDEN: Is this going to begin at the beginning? May I confer for a moment? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. I wanted to save some time because we're getting close to 4 o'clock. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to start this video at the beginning, and then we'll stop it after I lay a foundation, then go upstairs. Very well. Mr. Harris, thank you. This is, your Honor, for the record exhibit 1068. (At 3:51 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.) MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where this--you see that- MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Harris, back up a little bit. Okay. Let's back it up to the outside. MR. COCHRAN: You see that-- MR. COCHRAN: All right. Stop it there, Mr. Harris. Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see where it says 6-13-94? That was the date; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And where it says 2:13 P.M., that should be 3:13 P.M., right? MR. FORD: Yes. [...] MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this the--do you recognize this as being the stairway leading upstairs to Mr. Simpson's home? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And that would be about 4:08 P.M. on June 13th, 1994? MR. FORD: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was shot by you; isn't that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And this was one of the bedrooms, the children's bedrooms at the location? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're now entering—it's about 4:13 P.M. you're now entering—is this Mr. Simpson's bedroom area? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you took a photograph of a blanket there and an easy chair? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You continued on in that room. And you walked into this room; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you remember seeing this couch in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Remember the fireplace in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Now, stop right there. MR. COCHRAN: You stood right in that room; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you shot toward the fireplace at that time; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's bed was to the right; was it not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: About 4:13 in the afternoon; is that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You walked in that room--you see that--stop again. You took a photograph of something on top of the bed, is that correct, that was out? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: What are those? Do you remember what those were? MR. FORD: It looked to me like belt or tie. MR. COCHRAN: Maybe suspenders or something like that? MR. FORD: Maybe. MR. COCHRAN: All right. It was something on top of the bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you shot that, did you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now- MR. COCHRAN: Back up a little bit. MR. COCHRAN: You continued to shoot, did you, now? MR. FORD: This is going forward. You said back up? MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Well, he's going- MR. COCHRAN: Go ahead and back it up. All right. Stop it there. MR. COCHRAN: You see that carpet there or that rug right in front of the bed? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You saw that rug that particular day; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, you walked past that rug when you went into the other room, into the bathroom area, didn't you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Any socks on that rug that day, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: You didn't videotape any and there were none there; is that correct? MR. FORD: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: It's 4:13 P.M., about that time on June 13th, 1994 that you walked through there, right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And if there had been socks there, you would have taken photographs of them or video, correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can move it on, please. MR. COCHRAN: There's another shot. Now, you're basically--you're shooting from the foot of that bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you're right on that particular--that rug or carpet there; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: The foot of the bed. You didn't see any socks or anything else there, did you? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: Then from that point- MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. MR. COCHRAN: From that point, you went on into an alcove area where there's kind of bureau I guess we can call it? A vanity I think you'd call it. MR. FORD: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dean Uelman at Sanctions Hearing, 4 April 1995 "YOUR AFFIANT WISHES TO SEIZE THE GLOVES LEFT IN THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL TEND TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT THE BLOODY GLOVES RECOVERED BELONGED TO SIMPSON IN THAT HE FAVORED THIS TYPE, STYLE AND SIZE OF GLOVE. "THESE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE." NOW, WE BELIEVE THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION, BOTH OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN FINDING THAT GLOVE, WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS SECOND WARRANT IN THAT THE VIDEOTAPE REVEALS ONE GLOVE WHEREAS THE AFFIDAVIT REFERS TO A PAIR OF GLOVES. THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND WHEN WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT THE DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO SEIZE THE GLOVE. IT WAS NOT AN INADVERTENT LEAVING BEHIND. THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED BEFORE THEY LEFT THE PREMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THIS GLOVE OR THESE GLOVES, IF THERE ARE TWO.
Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time. Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it? Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline. You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.
Det. Bert Luper testimony of 20 July 1995 MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who collected these socks allegedly on that day? MR. COCHRAN: Now, if a-- MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware of whether or not the foyer blood drops, the socks were picked up sequentially or in order from the standpoint of time, one being first and the other being second and something was third? Are you aware of that? MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would have the best recollection of what the time these socks were picked up; you or Mr. Fung? MR. COCHRAN: Detective Luper, do you know what time Dennis Fung collected or Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected the spots in the foyer? MR. COCHRAN: Would you like to look at their log? MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the document I placed before you, is your memory refreshed as to the time that Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected these spots in the foyer at Rockingham on June 13th, 1994 in the afternoon? MR. COCHRAN: And you've not spoken with either Mazzola or Fung about their testimony? MR. COCHRAN: Do you know the time that Mr. Willie Ford videoed Mr. Simpson's bedroom and there were no socks at the foot of that bed? Do you know that time? MR. COCHRAN: All right. He was accompanied by some other people, not you? MR. COCHRAN: Now, you mentioned, sir, that when you were downstairs, one of the reasons that you had inadvertently put down the glove that we talked about was because you were trying to follow some blood spots or wood spots or something? MR. COCHRAN: Now, speaking of that by the way, as a detective and as the first person up those stairs- MR. COCHRAN: As the police officer who went up the stairs after 12:00 o'clock on that date, you didn't see any blood on the stairs going up there, did you? MR. COCHRAN: And so-- I may have asked you this. You did not have the straps on the bed seized at any point, right? MR. COCHRAN: Few other questions. Detective Luper, again, with regard to--strike that. With regard to criminalists Fung and Mazzola, did you notice as they were doing their work at Rockingham that day, they had kind of a clipboard or something of that nature where they were logging and writing down things as they would pick up various items? Do you remember seeing that? MR. COCHRAN: But it was possible, wasn't it? MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want to make sure I understand this. You took clothes out of the hamper to have photographs taken of them and didn't seize any of those clothes, right? MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you very kindly, your Honor. I have nothing further of this witness. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you? MR. DARDEN: As far as the socks are concerned, you weren't looking for blood on the socks, were you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In reading the below, bear in mind that the prosecution was sanctioned for its repeated failure to turn over the Willie Ford video of 13 June 1994, received by Det. Bert Luper on 14 June 1994. Det. Bert Luper sequestered it in his desk drawer for three or four months (so he testified) and then moved it to a filing cabinet (so he testified). No records of possession or transfer were kept (so he testified). According to Det. Luper, notification of the existence of the video was made March 22, 1995 to District Attorney's office, and the city attorney's office and Robbery Homicide then or the following day. The prosecution's claimed excuse for not turning over the video, despite repeated defense requests and news reports of the presence of a videographer at Rockingham, was that the prosecution remained blissfully unaware of its existence. The unbelieveable excuse was not believed. The crime scene log shows Willie Ford, the videographer, arriving at 3:10. The crime scene log does not show Marcia Clark arriving or leaving. About the only thing Det. Luper is certain of is that Marcia Clark left before Willie Ford arrived. The amazingly flexible memory of Det. Luper is truly unbelieveable. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing: Q: RIGHT. SO THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AT THIS POINT AND YOU TOOK HER -- TELL THE COURT BRIEFLY WHERE YOU TOOK HER ON THE WALK-THROUGH. Q: DID YOU MAKE A REPORT OF ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH MISS CLARK? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing: RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS: Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ACTUALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IN HAVING THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKEN WAS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY REASONS; ISN'T THAT TRUE? Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK LEFT THE PREMISES AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK OR BY THREE O'CLOCK, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME? MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED?
I had not finished presenting evidence when you posted at #300, OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. You claimed you read all the testimony and then conceded the point. And at #299, you stated, "Next time make a po[i]nt and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond." I posted relevant Luper testimony separately at #309, addressed it to all, and you can read it, or not read it, as you choose. You can post as much or as little testimony as you choose. So far you have posted nothing.
Why waste time with the "recollection" of Bert Luper who kept no log, took no notes, and can't recall the time a single piece of evidence was collected, except for his vague and convenient memory of Item 13? The primary collector of the blood stains was Andrea Mazzola; not Bert Luper who collected none, and not Dennis Fung who collected only a few. Andrea Mazzola kept the official log, recorded times of collection, and consulted her watch in doing so. Dennis Fung testified on 28 April 1995 that he was not 100% sure that Item #13 was collected before Item #14, but that he thought it was. Andrea Mazzola kept the log and was certain. Dennis Fung did not change his recollection of the time frame for Items #12-14 being from 1630 to 1640. [Testimony of Andrea Mazzola, 25 April 1995] [Testimony of Andrea Mazzola, 25 April 1995] MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Ms. Mazzola kept the official record, collected nearly all the blood stains, consulted her watch, and recorded the times of collection, as required. Her records were clear and contemporaneous with the events. If Bert Luper's wacko bullshit were correct, Fung and Mazzola collected 12-14 between 1530 - 1545 and then impersonated the walking dead until they stumbled upon Items 15 and 16 at 5:00. Let us also recall the testimony of Dennis Fung on 22 June 1994, only eight (8) days after the evidence was collected, and all shone sparkling bright in the memory of Mr. Fung, before uncertainty set in: HOWEVER, BY THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE RETURNED AROUND 4:00 O'CLOCK OR 5:00 O'CLOCK, AROUND THERE, THE SAME BLOOD DROPS WERE A DARK BROWN. Q. DID YOU FORM ANY -- WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WERE COLLECTING THOSE BLOOD DROPS? A. THE BLOOD DROPS AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE WERE RECOVERED IN THE EARLY MORNING, AROUND 8:00 O'CLOCK. Q. AND WHAT ABOUT THE BLOOD DROPS AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY DRIVE? A. THOSE WERE COLLECTED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11:00 O'CLOCK AND 4:00 O'CLOCK. Q. SO THOSE WERE COLLECTED AFTERWARDS, AFTER THE BLOOD DROPS WERE COLLECTED AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? A. YES. EXCEPT FOR THE BLOOD STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED INSIDE OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE. THOSE WERE COLLECTED IN THE LATE AFTERNOON. Q. WERE THOSE THE LAST TO BE COLLECTED? A. ON THAT DAY, YES. Bert Luper cannot be seen as the purveyor of the best evidence of the collection times. He kept no notes, and his expressed as extremely vague or nonexistent, time after time. Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995 - - - - - - - - - - Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995 - - - - - - - - - - Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED? Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995
No, it does not. Bert Luper expressed no timeline. Item #11 was picked up outside before entering the Rockingham residence in the afternoon. Luper never made any reference to it. Fung was not even present to observe. Item #12 was the first item collected inside the residence upon afternoon return to Rockingham. Luper did not know when Item #12 was collected, or if it was collected before or after Item #13. On everything but Item #13, Det. Luper sounds like Sgt. Shultz. [Andrea Mazzola testimony 26 April 1995] Luper's ridiculous testimony is more notable for what he claimed he did not know, than for what he claimed to know about the socks. If Burt Luper's testimony is to be believed: He recalls: As for the clothing in the washing machine not seized, Marcia Clark wrote, Clark, Without a Doubt, 376. Mark Fuhrman wrote that the sweats were discovered by his partner, Brad Roberts. [...] And his discovery of the sweats was no secret. Brad and I saw the sweats, as did two RHD detectives, as well as Dennis Fung and the video photographer. As the detective in charge of the investigation, Phil Vanatter would have been informed about the sweats. But in the second warrant affidavit it clearly states that "your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location, as literally hundreds of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for specific black cotton type sweat suit described, and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood." The words "can no longer remember" seem comical, as there was a videotape of the sweats, and at least six people who saw them in the washing machine. The words, "to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood," seems an odd way to describe a first look at an item. By using "more closely" it would almost appear that they had already been inspected at an earlier time. Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, paperback, 326. And for what he does not know or recall: Det. Luper kept no notes of anything. The actual testimony does not support your unsupported opinion. 3:40 is the time that Andrea Mazzola contemporaneously recorded, in writing, the collection of Item 11. That was on the side of the house, outdoors, near the garage. She testified about glancing at her watch to verify the time. [Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995] - - - - - - - - - - [Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995] - - - - - - - - - - [Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995] - - - - - - - - - - [Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995] - - - - - - - - - - [Dennis Fung testimony, 3 Apr 1995] - - - - - - - - - - Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995 In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14? MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain? - - - - - - - - - - [Dennis Fung testimony, 18 Apr 1995]
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel. Zip. Zero. Nada. Just your own commentary. The first item collected inside the house was at 4:30. Ms. Mazzola testified about what she was doing between 3:40 and 4:30. There was no time to do the inspection after the evidence collection upstairs. Items 15 and 16 were collected downstairs at about 5:00. At 5:11, a video shows Fung and Mazzola putting items in the truck in preparation for leaving. [Mazzola testimony 20 Apr 1995] [Mazzola testimony, 28 Apr 1995]
No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial.
No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time. Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it? Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline. You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony. misterwhite posted on 2017-07-04 10:07:57 ET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Same old, same old. You bitch when I have not yet gotten around to posting the testimony of Bert Luper, and then you bitch when I post it, pointing out that his testimony was hilariously absurd. You have claimed to have read all the testimony. And now you claim I have posted the entire trial. Since you have never watched or read the testimony, it is my pleasure to inform you that the trial transcript is about 20,000 pages. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty. You want more cowbell? I'll give you more cowbell. Los Angeles, California; Tuesday, April 25, 1995 1:30 P.M. (Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.) MR. GOLDBERG: It is about-- (Brief pause.) THE COURT: Turn the sound up. (The videotape continues playing.) THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg. And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs. The jury did not get treated to Goldman's audio track, but they got Neufeld and Mazzola doing a stop action review of the tape. It would be a daunting task to count the number of goofs. As well, the admissions of the lack of supervision, training and procedures was telling. And Mazzola collected almost every drop of blood at Bundy and Rockingham. Neufeld firmly established the problems endemic to the LAPD crime lab and its criminalists. Well, that was entertaining and educational about the LAPD criminalists. Just on that day alone, there are another 100 pages equaling and exceeding it. When you doubt the LAPD could contaminate the evidence, let them made a demonstration tape showing off their collection procedure. And let a prosecutor add an audio track.
ON A DEMONSTRATION TAPE, for crying out loud. "MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?" What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test.
What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test. After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive. When using one swab for multiple items, it is impossible to use a meaningful negative control. And, instructions for the pheno test explicitly inform one not to use a swab to test more than one item. [...] MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items? It was a problem in followup questioning on 27 April 1995 The prosecutors should learn to make up better b.s. stories. As brought out by Peter Neufeld, such a test is useless to establish whether anyone drove the car rather than just got in and back out. If there were blood only on the emergency brake, but not on either the accelerator or brake pedal, how would it prove somebody drove the car? It was a big problem when Peter Neufeld played the tape for the jury and questioned Andrea Mazzola, the sometimes unsupervised trainee who was the primary collector of the blood drops at Bundy and Rockingham. A prosecution expert, demonstrating to the jury that she did not know what she was doing, is a problem for the prosecution. Demonstrating that the prosecution was playing hide-the-ball is another problem. MAZZOLA, testimony 25 April 1995, VIDEO [...] MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, aside from Mr. Goldberg being present and a still photographer and a video photographer, were there other people present? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, again calling your attention to collecting a stain demonstration board with the still photographs on it, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that the still photographs depicted--shown on this board, because they are still photographs, don't capture the continuous motion involved in the entire process of bloodstain collection? [...] MR. NEUFELD: What was your understanding--when you were engaged in this demonstration for the District Attorney and the videocamera is rolling, what is your understanding of what the purpose of this videotape was going to be? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg or any Prosecutor ever tell you that it was important to convey to this jury how simple crime scene--I'm sorry--bloodstain collection is? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, during your prep sessions with Mr. Goldberg, did he tell you that there was a chance that this videotape might be played for the jury? [...] MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, was one of the questions that you discussed during those prep sessions a question involving you dropping swatches during a crime scene collection? (Deft's 1117 for id = videotape) THE COURT: Proceed. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I've never done this before in front of the jury. So there may be a couple of times where I ask to go back and slow it down and please indulge me a little bit. (At 3:29 P.M., People's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop it a second. (Deft's 1117-A for id = printout) MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, just before this shot where you put the right hand down on the dirty ground, did you clean the tweezers? [...] MR. NEUFELD: All right. And the same hand that you're using to catch that swatch at that point, if that's what you could have been doing, is the same right hand that you had just put down on the dirty ground; is that correct? MR. NEUFELD: Hold it one second, please. (Briefpause.) (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Could you just back up about--back up. Go a little more. Okay. Now go forward a little bit. [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now you're pouring more swatches out of the bottle, correct? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you made this demonstration tape, were you aware of the fact that your right hand had been resting on the dirty concrete? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now that you see the control swatch just as it's about to hit the control area next to stain no. 5, would you agree that the discoloration we saw later on when you're actually about to lift the bloodstain is moisture from the control swatch? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, can you see that the moisture has spread out from the control swatch so it is in fact touching the blood drop stain? [...] MR. NEUFELD: When you received your instruction on how to collect bloodstain evidence, although you were taught to collect a control close to the bloodstain, you were also taught, Miss Mazzola, not to allow the moisture from the control swatch to come into contact with the bloodstain; isn't that correct? [...] MR. NEUFELD: And you're putting it in the coin envelope now? (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Just back up a second, please. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: And there are more swatches that have dropped to the ground again, haven't there? [...] MR. NEUFELD: See the moisture moving out from the control swatch, Miss Mazzola? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Dropped other swatches there, Miss Mazzola; is that correct? (At 4:16 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.) MR. NEUFELD: One of the procedures that you have been taught at LAPD was to put some scale in the photograph such as a tape--such as a ruler to indicate the size of the actual bloodstain, correct? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, how many crime scenes have you collected bloodstains at since June 13th, 1994? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you came back to Rockingham later in the afternoon on the 13th, the first item of evidence that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you receive a handout from the SID unit entitled, "Collection and preservation of body fluids"? Do you have it? (Deft's 1118 for id = handout) MR. NEUFELD: Show you this, ask you to take a look at item no. 13. (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: But you would agree, ma'am, that there were at least a few drops in that foyer area where you collected no. 12? [...] MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, before that you can't tell whether or not this trail of blood drops at Rockingham is leading from the house to the Bronco or from the Bronco to the house; isn't that correct? [...] (Deft's 1119 for id = photograph) [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize that photograph?
Uh-huh. Why would they get in with bloody shoes then immediately get out? Like everything else you claim, it's possible, but why would it be reasonable for anyone to do it?
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.
Why would someone get in the car to plant blood and take it for a drive? Mazzola's testimony is coming. Enjoy! As for the shoes, I intent to prove that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of a Bruno Magli shoeprint to any degree of scientific certainty. Try not to get apoplexy. That will covewred with the testimony of FBI Special Agent William J. Bodziak.
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can. Mozzola only used swab "A". Mozzola collected no substrate control. If there was a positive result, there is no way of telling whether A, B, or C indicated the possibility of the presence of blood. With no substrate control, there is no way of telling if one of the combined items contained beet juice and would have tested positive using distilled water on an area outside any stain. What you've got is squat. I was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminalists did not know what they were doing, or didn't care, and not much else.
Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 20 April 1995; EXCERPTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MS. MAZZOLA: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MS. MAZZOLA: The sample item no. 18, 17, 19, are mine. The "Received--received in serology" under 18 is mine. 17, the location of item "Received from Vannatter" is Mr. Fung's writing. My writing is the writing under the "Item collected" for that item number, and Mr. Fung's writing is "Removed from." Mine is "Item 9" and his is the "Hairs and fibers." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you present when any pair of sneakers was handed over? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do you have any recollection of why that was erased and the other--and "Received from Vannatter" put in there? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 25 April 1995, EXCERPTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And it is when they took you over to see the Bronco that you first began to fill out the vehicle search checklist; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Yet, ma'am, no one erased your name as the OIC, the officer in charge, on the vehicle search checklist; isn't that correct? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, the supervising criminalist didn't bother to stay with you the entire time; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD that student or trainee—I'm sorry—that probationer criminalists participating in their very first crime scene collection matter should be there in an unsupervised capacity when they are collecting critical evidence? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD SID unit that new probationers like yourself learn from mistakes when you are collecting critical evidence at a murder crime scene? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, ma'am, does the Los Angeles Police Department publish any guidelines at all as to how to supervise and train a new criminalist at a crime scene? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Well, to your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, is each supervising criminalist free to allow you to do as much or as little as a particular supervising criminalist chooses? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department are you aware of the L.A. Police Department's crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Have you received, during the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department, any manual prepared by SID laying out the various procedures and rules that you are inquired to follow? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, one of the things you have been taught to do, Miss Mazzola, is to fill out and prepare crime scene investigation field notes; is that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that it was your understanding, when you testified on August 23rd, that you were required to fill out these reports completely and accurately? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, one of the requirements on these forms is to note for each item collected the location it is found; is that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I ask you again have you ever received a handout from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit instructing you that you are required to keep complete and accurate field notes? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, on the crime scene checklist there is a box, a question that says "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?" Isn't there? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, isn't it fair to say that you cannot assume that no one altered the crime scene before you arrived; isn't that correct? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: You didn't do any processing of samples on the 14th? (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th you did not participate in the search of the Bronco, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola on June 28th were you out sick? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: However, a positive result, when that little swab turns that-- I think you say magenta? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, on June 14th it was yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect every single blood stain on the outside and inside of the Bronco that was visible to you; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: In fact, during your prep sessions with the Prosecutors, did they tell you that the issue of whether or not there were bloodstains located on the sill area was an issue in the case? Did that come up at all during your prep sessions? (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) (Briefpause.) (Deft's 1113 for id = photograph) (Briefpause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--to the--to the best of your recollection, ma'am, you didn't even see the specks in that upper circle on the 14th, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the smear or grayish or-- I am sorry--discoloration indicated in the third circle, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: When you were standing out on the sidewalk and they were moving the bodies, what did you see or where did you see Dennis Fung standing? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, at 7:00 A.M., you said when--that's when you arrived. A little bit after 7:00 A.M., you arrived at Rockingham with Dennis Fung? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And so as to the items in the driveway, the detectives told you which items to collect? (Briefpause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: All right. Did you ask the detectives whether or not the bodies had been removed yet at 8:00 A.M. in the morning before you started collecting stains at Rockingham? (Briefpause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: were you taught at the SID, Miss Mazzola, that acceptable crime scene photography should tell a story by itself absent of any written or oral narration? Were you taught that concept? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: So would it be fair to say that it was Dennis Fung's responsibility as the senior criminalist at the scene to instruct the forensic photographers on how to take the pictures of various items of evidence? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now I'm going to question about the board. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Well, did--there's only one photograph here that has an arrow and a northerly direction on it; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that in terms of the drops that were collected, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, that for those drops that do not have a ruler in the picture, there is no record of the size of those drops? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you personally do the phenolphtalein test on the speck next to the driver's handle? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, back at Rockingham in the morning of June 13th, isn't it a fact that you personally and exclusively collected every drop of blood that was seen at Rockingham? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you testified this morning on direct examination that it is now your recollection that Mr. Fung and not you collected the drops, items number 4, 5 and 6; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct." Did you give that answer to that question last Thursday? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which—I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you were relying exclusively on your memory, on your independent recollection when you testified on August 23rd, correct? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, Miss Mazzola, let me ask you a question: You said before that when you collected item 7, the blood drop on the Rockingham driveway- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me show you the other LAPD evidence summary board which is 177-C. Do you remember the drops along the pathway at Bundy? (Briefpause.) (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct, ma'am, you personally collected item 47? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, ma'am, with respect to item 47, even after the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, you indicated that 47 was collected only by Mazzola? (Briefpause.) MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: So you did not know on June 13th which direction these drops were going in, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show you what has been previously admitted as exhibit 1072 which is a surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's home and property. Do you see that? Have you had a chance to look at it? - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that the distance from stain a to the location where the glove was collected is a distance of approximately 250 feet? (Briefpause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that when you were at Rockingham on the 13th you examined the walkway for evidence, the walkway leading up to the garage? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, that the only training you have received in collecting blood stains is for--is for serological testing in general and not for DNA testing in particular; is that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware, to your knowledge, as you sit here today, as to whether heat and humidity can have negative effects on the reliability of blood stain evidence? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: When you say you are aware that heat and humidity can affect--can affect DNA--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. When say you are aware that heat and humidity can have an effect on blood stain evidence, what effect is it that you believe it will have? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular case you took wet blood swatches and you placed them in a clear plastic bag; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD that just like moisture, heat also can promote bacterial growth? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, have you been taught at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that with respect to preserving wet stains you should do the following: "Items containing wet blood, semen or chemical stains shall be permitted to dry at room temperature before packaging. Plastic containers or plastic wrap shall not be used as a packaging material?" Were you taught that at LAPD? (Briefpause.) (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, section 510.12 of the Los Angeles Police Department manual states, A: "Analyzed evidence requiring freezer storage shall be booked at Central Property Division no later than six hours after it is obtained." During the time that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever personally read that section of the LAPD manual? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that neither you nor Mr. Fung booked any of the evidence that needed to be frozen within six hours after it was obtained? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I show you what has already been previously introduced as Prosecution exhibit 163-H which are three analyzed evidence envelopes. Now, when you obtained a reference sample of fresh blood, what color envelope is it to be stored in? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, ma'am, between the time that you picked up the hat and the glove at Bundy, you didn't change your gloves then, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (At 9:31 A.M., Defense exhibit 1083, a videotape, was played.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--can you stop for one second. Miss Mazzola, are you a lefty? (The videotape resumes playing.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop, stop. (The videotape resumes playing.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: (Brief pause.) MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at volume-- [...] MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, at page 23790 were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question by MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you said on direct examination, when I was asking you about collecting the glove and the watch cap, the cap, that they were in close proximity or touching? "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: Which was it? "Answer: Reviewing photographs, they were invery close proximity to each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers? (Brief pause.) MR. NEUFELD: When you pick up the hat, you have to be careful because there may be trace evidence on it? That is something that you were taught at the SID mini academy; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Was it--had you been taught by anyone at the SID mini academy that it was okay to store a vial of whole blood in a trash bag on a counter in an unrefrigerated capacity overnight? (Brief pause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ah. I see my mistake. Swab surface "A", nothing. Swab surface "B", nothing. Swab surface "C", bingo. Sure you can. Looking for DNA on any of those items was a waste of time. DNA could have been picked up by anyone's shoes, anywhere, and deposited. They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:
You stubbornly do not get it. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. It is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm the PRESENCE of blood with a pheno test. Your claim of "Bingo" goes contrary to the science. It is only possible to confirm the ABSENCE of blood with a pheno test. A positive pheno test result, without a confirmatory positive test result, is inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood. It will indicate positive when reacting to human blood, animal blood, and hundreds of other substances, e.g., beet juice. In the absence of a confirmatory test, the obtainment of a positive pheno result is a waste of time. What was the crap elicited by prosecutor Hank Goldberg on direct, and stated by Andrea Mazzola under oath, claiming the "tests" (plural), "were" (plural), positive? There was no mention of the idiotic one swab test on direct. On direct, Mazzola referred to the "tests were" plural, "positive." And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test. There was no confirmation of the presence of blood, and there was presence of misleading testimony by omission of the single swab being used, and referring to the "tests" plural. (Brief pause.) MS. MAZZOLA: The phenolphthalein tests were positive. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - During Mazzola's testimony on the 26th, similar crap elicited this from Judge Ito: - - - - - - - - - -
Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice. The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence. So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case. Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case. And wasting my time.
Or one of several hundred other substances which will yield a positive result on a pheno test. As I said and documented for the umpteenth time, a pheno test is incapable of proving the presence of blood. It is an exclusionary test which can show the absence of blood. You are responding another post where I quoted the testimonial evidence from a transcript. It was inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood, animal or human. The detectives opinion plus a pheno test fails to qualify as proof of the presence of blood, animal or human. Which part do you deliberately not understand? As they never even collected a swatch, it was impossible to do a confirmatory test. As they failed to do a confirmatory test, whatever they did with the one swab does mean something in the case. It means the direct testimony was misleading or false, and the criminalists were incompetent or worse. I am documenting the monumental failure of the criminalists to follow mandatory collection procedures. It screwed the entire case. You are wasting your time. You claimed the prosecution had 10x the amount of evidence necessary for the jury to return a verdict of guilty. We are now past post number 300 and you have produced no actual evidence from the criminal trial whatever. The prosecution in the criminal case failed to produce sufficient to justify a conviction. That is why there is such difficulty finding it.
FUHRMAN FALSE TESTIMONY Det Mark FUHRMAN questioned by Marcia CLARK: 4045 - 4046 March 10, 1995 A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING. Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY? A: YES, MA'AM. Q: SO AT THE POINT THAT YOU WROTE THE SKI MASK, HOW CLOSE HAD YOU GOTTEN TO THAT ITEM? A: NO CLOSER THAN THE LANDING WHERE I OBSERVED THE TWO VICTIMS FROM WHERE THE FIRST SHOEPRINT -- Q: THAT WAS THE CLOSEST OBSERVATION YOU HAD AT THAT POINT? A: YES. [...] Q: DID YOU EVER GO BACK INTO THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE GOING TO ROCKINGHAM LATER THAT MORNING? A: NO, I DIDN'T. Q: SO AFTER THE POINT THAT YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE AFTER COMPLETING YOUR NOTES, YOU NEVER WENT BACK IN AGAIN UNTIL LATER IN THE MORNING AFTER HAVING GONE TO ROCKINGHAM? A: YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID RETURN AT ABOUT 7:00, 7:15, YES. That was all lies, under oath.
I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?
I am going to continue on this thread for at least a week or two. I can prove that to be lies beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. I am first laying the foundation for the claim. The N-word testimony was not directly relevant and material to the O.J. trial. The false statements about the gloves was. Follow further posts and you will see how closely resort to the fifth amendment followed. The defense had asked for the photographer's contact prints for seven months. The prosecution claimed they did not exist. Then, when shoe expert, FBI Special Agent Bodziak testified, he produced clear contact prints in court. At a morning discovery hearing on 1 September 1995, Judge Ito ordered the prosecution to provide a copy of the contact sheets to the defense by 12 noon. The contact sheets showed the order the photographs were taken, and proved that the photograph of Det. Fuhrman was taken at night, before he ever went to Rockingham, directly contradicting the prior testimony of Det. Fuhrman and the other detectives. It was a big oh shit moment for the prosecution in general, and for Det. Fuhrman in particular. Four days later, Det. Fuhrman was forced to invoke the 5th Amendment. Note how the prosecution was caught hiding discoverable evidence - again. Hearing on discovery of the contact prints, 1 September 1995.
I significantly quoted photographer Rokahr's testimony at my #220 above. I am here only making its significance in-your-face obvious. The glove photo was taken at Bundy very shortly before Fuhrman went to Rockingham. Fuhrman lied and testified that the photo was taken after he got back from Rockingham. - - - - - - - - - - On March 10, 1995, Det. Fuhrman testified that the photograph of him pointing at the Bundy glove was taken at around 7 or 7:15 in the morning, and that he had already been to Rockingham and had returned to Bundy. He further testified that up until that point, he had gotten no closer to that glove than the landing at Bundy. In his March testimony, Det. Fuhrman had provided his own alibi against assertions that he had planted a glove at Rockingham, testifying that, before his return to Rockingham, he had never gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, and that the photograph was taken after he returned to Bundy from Rockingham. That testimony was false. Unlike his lies about using the N-word, these lies were directly relevant and material to the murder case, and his discovery and handling of evidence. Very shortly before the testimony of photographer Rolf Rokahr on September 5, 1995, seven months after Peter Neufeld's formal request, the prosecution was forced to provide a copy of the photographer's contact sheets to the defense. The first contact sheet proved, absolutely, that the picture of Det. Fuhrman was taken at the end of the first roll of film shot by the photographer who had arrived at Bundy shortly after 3 a.m. According to Lawrence Schiller, in a meeting on August 31, 1995, Barry Scheck exclaimed, "The first contact sheet, of the first roll of film shot, shows the order in which the pictures were taken... The pictures on the contact sheet taken before and after the glove photos show they were taken at night. Fuhrman testified that the picture in which he is pointing at the glove was taken at seven a.m. or later. Fuhurman testified that he was never near the glove before he went to Rockingham at four-forty." Alan Dershowictz chimed in, "His finger in the photograph is three inches away from the glove. God only knows how cose it was when the camera wasn't shooting." A little later O.J. calls and Scheck exclaims, "I got him, I got Fuhrman!" Bailey asks how he got him. Scheck explains, "I have Rokahr's photo log here. I have Fuhrman's testimony here. Peter has seen the D.A.'s set of Rokahr's contact sheets, and it shows that the picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at night." Pounding on the table, Sheck exhorts, "Now we got proof, now we got proof!" On September 5, 1995, photographer Rolf Rokahr's testimony made clear that the picture of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove, with his fiinger about three inches from it, was taken at night, not after 7 a.m., but before daybreak which was at 5:41a.m. The photograph was taken at about 4:20 to 4:35 in the morning. At about 5 a.m., Fuhrman and Vanatter arrived at Rockingham. The Fuhrman self-alibi against the accusation of glove planting at Rockingham was false testimony. Rokahr's testimony was on September 5th. The next day, September 6th, is when Det. Fuhrman invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify further in the case. As for Det. Fuhrman's own contradictory testimony, see Det. Fuhrman on March 13, 1995: A: THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY. Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR? A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED. Q: AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU? A: YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY. Q: OKAY. IN THE SAME CAR YOU GUYS CAME IN EARLIER? A: YES. Q: YOU DROVE TOGETHER, DID YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY? A: I BELIEVE ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER. Q: AGAIN, WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK TO BUNDY? A: NO, I WASN'T. Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. Of course, Mr. Rokahr was called at 2:48 a.m. and arrived at Bundy about 3:30 a.m. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove was taken in the dark, with a flash, about an hour and a half before sunrise. The contact sheet pictures before and after the glove picture prove that the glove picture was taken at night. Photographer Rokahr met up with Det. Fuhrman at about 4:10 a.m. and was asked to go around to Dorothy St. Oops! If Det. Fuhrman had not gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, in the dark, just how could Det. Fuhrman know if the color and lining of the Bundy glove and the color and lining of the Rockingham glove were a match? At the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994 A Yes, looking down, directly below the landing, there -- I believe at that point there was a heel print which appeared to be going in a westbound direction, away from the bodies, towards the alley. There was also a knit cap or what appeared to be a knit cap, dark cap-type object, and what looked like a glove at the feet of the male victim in the shrubbery area just to the north of the female victim. Q Can you describe the glove any better? A At that time, it was difficult to see it. There was another location from the north residence that I got a better view of it, a little later. And then I noticed that it was a dark brown -- or it could have been even black in the light that I was looking at it -- and it did appear to be a stocking cap when I got a closer look. Q So it was a -- it looked to you to be a dark brown or even black leather glove, and a -- did you say what color the hat was? A It was very dark. Maybe dark blue or black. Q Knit cap? A It appeared to be knit, yes. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman testified he couldn't tell much. It was only later, after he obtained a better view, that he was able to determine the glove was dark brown or black. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman was uncertain if the knit cap was a knit cap, or whether it was dark blue or black. And he did not appear to determine anything whatever about the lining of the glove. While Det. Fuhrman was a practiced liar, and could do it convincingly with a straight face, that does not mean that his false statements could withstand scrutiny. Det. Fuhrman could not afford to go another round with F. Lee Bailey at the criminal trial, and he did not testify at the civil trial. The lies of Mark Fuhrman destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman. They also destroyed the credibility of Marcia Clark who solicited his unbelieveable lies to the jury. Fuhrman was meant to be Christopher Darden's witness. After Darden was unable to swallow Fuhrman's claims about the N-word in a prep session, he refused to participate in the presentation of Fuhrman's testimony to the jury. Only then did Marcia Clark present Fuhrman's lies to the jury, get exposed for doing it, and lose credibility with the jury for having participated in that charade. As for Fuhrman, it was the lies in his testimony about the gloves that threatened to send him to prison. Those were directly relevant and material to the murder case. - - - - - - - - - - Marcia Clark, Closing Argument It was impossible to bullshit the jury and rehabilitate Det. Fuhrman or the prosecution case. Directly relevant and material false testimony was solicited and given to the jury, and it was exposed and proven. Exposed were not only Det. Fuhrman, but the other detectives who tried to cover for him, and Marcia Clark who presented Det. Fuhrman and tried to blow smoke up their collective ass.
Comments (333 - 422) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#293. To: misterwhite (#290)
I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.
#294. To: A K A Stone (#291)
OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ.
#295. To: goldilucky, A K A Stone (#292)
Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?
#296. To: misterwhite (#290)
I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.
Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT?
#297. To: misterwhite (#290)
I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.
MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location?
#298. To: nolu chan (#297)
Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)
#299. To: nolu chan (#297)
#300. To: nolu chan (#296)
Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?
#301. To: goldilucky (#292)
Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?
#302. To: misterwhite (#301)
The gloves were lined with cashmere.
#303. To: goldilucky (#302)
Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA?
#304. To: misterwhite (#303)
#305. To: goldilucky (#304)
Well what do you think they dust for?
#306. To: misterwhite (#298)
Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 [sic 3:00] or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location?
#307. To: misterwhite (#300)
That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time.
Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Counsel is aware of this, your Honor. This is exhibit 1068, is the videotape. I'd like now to--let me say a word to Mr. Harris before we start, your Honor. I don't want to spend the entire day going all the way through. I want to get right to the important part.
WE HAVE NOTED INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM, AS PORTRAYED IN THE TAPE WHERE A SINGLE GLOVE WAS REMOVED, BROUGHT DOWNSTAIRS, PUT ON A TABLE AND APPEARS IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED TO UNDER OATH BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK ON JUNE 28TH. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID -- AND THIS WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE YOU WILL RECALL TO GO BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AND EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH WARRANT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST WARRANT. THE PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDED THE ALLEGATION THAT:
"ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE SERVICE OF THE FIRST WARRANT, OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT DURING THAT SERVICE HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THEY SAW ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES INSIDE SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. THESE OFFICERS HAD ALSO SEEN THE GLOVE FOUND AT THE MURDER LOCATION AND HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THE GLOVES IN THE RESIDENCE APPEARED TO BE OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE ONE FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
#308. To: nolu chan (#307)
#309. To: all (#308)
MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at items 12, 13 and 14, just look down at those.
(The witness complies.)
MR. COCHRAN: Have you looked at the log now?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize that as a log kept by the members of the Special Investigations Division regarding the collection of items at a crime scene?
MR. DARDEN: Objection to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recognize that particular log and how it's used, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: I've never seen a log used like this before.
MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever seen a log used by the members of the Special Investigation Division at all?
DET. LUPER: No. I mean, I've never paid much attention to how they record their evidence.
DET. LUPER: What I saw was Mr. Fung collecting them.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time of day did Mr. Fung collect these socks? Well, without looking at the log.
DET. LUPER: Well, there's no time on the log anyway. So it had to be in-between 3:30, 3:45, somewhere in that general area.
MR. COCHRAN: 3:30, 3:45?
DET. LUPER: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: I haven't asked a question.
THE COURT: I know. It was "If a."
MR. COCHRAN: Huh? "If a." I want to phrase this question, your Honor, if I might. May I phrase the question?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Dennis Fung, have you had occasion to see his testimony in this court before this jury regarding the time that he picked these socks up allegedly?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not.
MR. COCHRAN: Have you had occasion to talk with Mr. Fung at all regarding the time these socks were picked up?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not.
DET. LUPER: No, I'm not aware.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, your estimate is that Mr. Fung picked these socks up at--what time was that now?
DET. LUPER: Well, about 3:30, 3:45, in that general area in the afternoon.
MR. COCHRAN: And is that--do you have that written in a report anywhere?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I do not.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's argumentative. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, may I ask it another way, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would be in the best position to know what time these socks were picked up; the person who collected them allegedly or you, sir?
MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have another question I'd like to ask if I might at this point.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach before you do that.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.) (The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
DET. LUPER: Not without looking at their notes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, if that refreshes his recollection.
THE COURT: He can use it if it will refresh his recollection.
MR. DARDEN: He never testified that he ever knew.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed?
MR. DARDEN: Foundation.
MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at this and see what--if you can look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what time they picked up the spots in the foyer?
DET. LUPER: According to their log, it said-
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, the proper way I guess, your Honor-
MR. COCHRAN: Having looked at the log, does that refresh your recollection as to the time that Mr. Fung or Miss Mazzola picked up the--collected the spots in the foyer?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.
MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.
DET. LUPER: It would appear by their log that they-
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Again, I'll rephrase it again.
MR. DARDEN: Foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: The log indicates--
MR. DARDEN: Pardon me, sir.
THE COURT: Yes. Wait a minute. Detective Luper, the question is, is your personal recollection refreshed as--after having read the log as to when those spots were recovered in the foyer?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you have no way of knowing at all?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not that the foyer spots were collected prior to the time that you say the socks were collected?
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness is looking at the log?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Want me to remove that?
DET. LUPER: Yeah, would you? Thank you. I don't know how they were--if they were done in a certain order or sequentially. I know that Miss Mazzola and Dennis Fung were working pretty much-
MR. DARDEN: I object at this time as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So--there was an objection to the question by Mr. Darden. So I didn't get to finish hearing it. So you don't know-- I guess my question was, do you know whether or not the spots in the foyer were collected prior to anything being collected upstairs?
DET. LUPER: I don't know.
MR. COCHRAN: You don't know. And the form that I've given you does not refresh your recollection?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you don't know the times that they said?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know that time, sir?
DET. LUPER: I did not look at my watch on that particular day to be specific. No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, you weren't in the bedroom at the time Mr. Ford was videoing the area of Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
DET. LUPER: No, I was not in the bedroom.
MR. COCHRAN: You were someplace else in the house, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: Well, they appeared to be discolored discoloration on the wood floor and they appeared to be spots that were not one right after another, but fairly far apart from each other.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you pursue these spots?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And you found out later that was not blood, was it?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: So it was kind of like a trail of no blood, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well--counsel is absolutely correct.
DET. LUPER: I didn't see any, no, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any blood on the carpet of Mr. Simpson's bedroom as you go in there, did you?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I did not.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these socks that you had seized, you didn't see any blood on those socks either, did you?
DET. LUPER: I didn't get close enough to examine them.
MR. COCHRAN: Is the answer, you didn't see any blood on the socks?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And it's your testimony that you had these socks seized or asked to have them seized whatever time they were seized because they were out of place; is that right?
DET. LUPER: They were out of place and it seemed like a very good idea.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you had them seized; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you never got very close to them at that time?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Those were just left there; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's right, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And so that as they--you would see them in one particular area. They would then write something down on a piece of paper although you don't know what they were writing, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Your experience as a detective of some eight years and a 23-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department, you believe that what you saw them writing was a log that they kept consistent with keeping track of what they were collecting and the time that they were collecting these items; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation and it's leading, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, what did you think this was that they were writing down as they could collect various items?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: I felt that what they were writing down was the dimensions as to where certain items were being recovered and as to its description.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So item--location of the item, where recovered, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: The item collected, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: The time collected?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.
DET. LUPER: I was unaware that they were making a notation of time.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
DET. LUPER: That is correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, we've gone through this a number of times.
MR. COCHRAN: This is foundational, your Honor. It's foundation. Bear with me.
MR. COCHRAN: You took--you looked in the closet and you never seized anything there, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You saw these suspenders or--strike that. You saw these straps on the bed and you never seized those, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You took a glove from upstairs and brought it all the way downstairs and you didn't seize that either, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: It's your testimony that you saw some socks that were out of place and you instructed that be seized; is that right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And it's your best testimony before this jury that those items were seized about 3:30 to 3:45 on June 13th?
DET. LUPER: That general time frame, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Just a few questions, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: And we are talking about general time frames, aren't we, detective?
DET. LUPER: Yes, we are, sir.
MR. DARDEN: You weren't checking your watch to see when and the exact time that Mazzola and Fung picked up an item, were you?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not.
MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Leading and suggestive, improper.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you?
DET. LUPER: No, I did not, sir.
MR. DARDEN: I mean they're the criminalists, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: It's their job to pick up and collect the biological evidence, right?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: It's not your job, is it?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, it's not.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know the exact sequence in which everything was collected, right?
MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't want to get too close to the socks, right.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir. Q: NOW, BACK TO MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK WAS THERE AND YOU TOOK HER ON A WALKTHROUGH AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN COMPLETED?
A: AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN LOCATED, YES.
A: I TOOK HER ON THE BOTTOM LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE, THE FIRST FLOOR, TO SHOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS I WANTED DONE, TOOK HER UPSTAIRS, SHOWED HER THE VANITY -- I MEAN NOT THE VANITY, I'M SORRY, THE LINEN CLOSET, AND SHOWED HER THE SOCKS AND THE BLOOD EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE BATHROOM, AND TOOK HER I THINK TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SHOWED HER A WIRE THAT I WANTED CHECKED AND WHAT WAS IN THE TRASH CAN THERE BY THE ENTRYWAY TO THE OFFICE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AIRLINE TICKET. AND THEN ON THE EXTERIOR THERE WAS A BENCH SEAT RIGHT THERE BY THE FRONT DOOR THAT HAD A LUGGAGE TAG THROWN ON ONE END OF IT, AND THAT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO HER.
A: NO, SIR.
Q: DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR TAKING HER THROUGH THE PREMISES AND NOTING THESE OBJECTS?
A: NO, SIR.
Q: YOU NEVER MADE A REPORT LIKE THAT, DID YOU?
A: NO, SIR.
Q: DID MARCIA CLARK SIGN IN ON THE LOG WHEN SHE CAME TO THAT RESIDENCE?
A: YOU WON'T FIND HER ON THAT LOG, NO, SIR.
Q: WHY WON'T WE?
A: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WELL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER LOG THAT SHE SIGNED IN ON WHEN SHE CAME THERE?
A: TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
Q: YES, SIR, ROCKINGHAM?
A: NO, SIR, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. LEWIS: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
A: YES, MA'AM.
A: IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME, YES, MA'AM.
Q: AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY, AS WE KNOW FROM SEEING THE VIDEOTAPE, APPROXIMATELY 3:11 OR; SO, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. LUPER BEFORE HE LEAVES.
THE COURT: SURE.
A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.
Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?
A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.
Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?
A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?
MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?
A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
#310. To: misterwhite (#308)
Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it?
#311. To: misterwhite (#308)
Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time.
MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And the Simpson case was your very first case in which you were the primary collector of blood stain evidence; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which--I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.
THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14?
MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question.
THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim--
THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's-- A. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY HOURS A BLOOD DROP IS OLD; HOWEVER, I CAN TELL YOU ON THIS DAY, WHEN WE WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE IN THE MORNING, THE BLOOD DROPS APPEARED TO BE FAIRLY FRESH. THEY HAD A REDDISH TINGE TO THEM.
Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WERE YOU PRESENT WITH THE VIDEOGRAPHER WHEN HE WAS VIDEOTAPING THE MASTER BEDROOM?
A: NO, MA'AM. Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:
A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.
Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?
A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.
Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?
A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?
MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?
A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q: THE LOG INDICATES THEY ARRIVED ABOUT 3:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO WHO.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ADKINS AND FORD?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
#312. To: misterwhite (#308)
Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you first got back to Rockingham, Miss Mazzola, the first place you inspected was the exterior south side of Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And while you were down inspecting and examining that location of Mr. Simpson's property, you noticed a red mark on a wire hanging down; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was brought to my attention that there was a red mark on a wire back there.
MR. NEUFELD: And who was it that brought that to your attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if it was Mr. Fung or a detective.
MR. NEUFELD: And after it was brought to your attention, did you then return to the front of the house to go get your stain collection kit?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then once you got the stain collection kit, you alone went back to the side of the house to collect that stain; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that reddish discoloration that you collected on that wire, that became item no. 11; did it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that item no. 11 without Dennis Fung even being present to observe; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. I was studying a picture of Dennis Fung crouched near the laundry hamper in Simpson's master bathroom. He was holding something dark in his hand. I looked closer. Could it be? It had to be. Jesus! It was the dark sweatshirt Kato had described Simpson wearing when they drove to McDonald's! Why hadn't anyone told me about this? Those sweats had to be tested for blood immediately. Unless of course they were never seized.
The authors of the June 28 warrant seem to be trying to cover up mistakes made during the execution of the June 13 warrant. I know because I was there and watched the evidence discovery during both warrants. With one exception—the request to search Simpson's Bentley for the "absence of blood"—the entire second warrant sought permission to search for items that had already been found, but never collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized.
MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40?
MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch. MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.
THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14. Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS ITEM NO. 12 COLLECTED?
A: THAT WAS COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER COLLECTING ITEM NO. 12, DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS IN THE LOCATION?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS THE NEXT ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED?
A: THE NEXT ITEM WAS A PAIR OF SOCKS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist?
MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure?
MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first?
MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first.
MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure?
MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure.
MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately?
MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame?
MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me. MR. SCHECK: "Question: And then the next item was a red stain from the foyer area inside Rockingham, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And that one was collected at 4:30? "Answer: Yes. "And/or thereabouts--"Question: Or thereabouts? "And the next item you collected were the socks? "Answer: Yes. "But there is no time indicated for that? "Answer: That's correct. "And the next item after you--after that you indicated was a red stain that was found in the master bathroom? "Answer: Yes. "And that time is at 4:40? "Answer: Yes. "So I believe it was your testimony on direct examination that you collected the socks sometime between 4:30 and 4:40? "Answer: About then, yes."
MR. SCHECK: Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
#313. To: misterwhite (#308)
You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.
(At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits. MR. NEUFELD: And once you entered the house after you collected item 11, the first item that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Those would be the drops of blood that you found in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And before you collected item no. 12, you did an inspection of the first floor of the house; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if we inspected first or picked up first.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.
MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And either before or after you picked up item 12, you did do an inspection of the first floor of the house looking for bloody clothing; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: For blood in general.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Looking for bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for blood smears?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for flecks of dry blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen sink?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--do you know whether Dennis Fung examined the kitchen sink?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally I don't know if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you examine the laundry room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you examine the living room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the dining room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that except for the several drops that you found right in the foyer inside the front door, that there were no bloodstains found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there was no blood smears found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there were no blood flakes, flakes of dry blood found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that's what you were looking for, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were taught, ma'am, looking for blood evidence to examine the location in a systematic way; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It is redundant.
MR. NEUFELD: Not to the inside of the house.
THE COURT: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: Especially with negative results.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you inspected the first floor, you went up to the second floor; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you inspect counters?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect light switches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect the shelves in Mr. Simpson's closet?
MS. MAZZOLA: As the shelves themselves or the contents? What--
MR. NEUFELD: Just the front of the shelves.
MS. MAZZOLA: I--
MR. NEUFELD: For any sign of blood.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we looked at the front of the shelves or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you look at knobs on the drawers?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And no flakes of dry blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And no smears of wet blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Defendant.)
MR. NEUFELD: And while you were there, Miss Mazzola, did you inspect either the intercom or the telephone to see whether or not there were any bloodstains on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know whether Dennis Fung did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know personally if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, are telephones one of the locations that you were taught at the SID mini academy to examine for the presence of blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We were not taught to look at the phone. We were taught to look at things in general.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, up on the second floor in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, were you shown a pair of dark socks on the floor?
MS. MAZZOLA: There were a pair of dark socks on the floor.
#314. To: nolu chan (#313)
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.
#315. To: misterwhite (#314)
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.
#308. To: nolu chan (#307)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, also there were some legal issues as to matters that they would like to use during cross-examination, but perhaps bring up before the jury comes back.
THE COURT: Such as? Why don't you move that easel back.
MR. NEUFELD: Toward you, you mean?
THE COURT: Just move it back so when the jury comes in, they don't have to step over it. Thank you. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we bring up those issues, your Honor?
THE COURT: I haven't seen anything yet.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't understand. Well, one of the issues is the Defense would like to use a demonstration video that the Prosecution created, which is a video that was done simultaneously to the demonstration boards of the blood collection. And I don't object to the use of the video portion of the tape, per say, although it is probably not relevant, but there is an audio portion of the tape that basically doesn't pertain to anything other than my own conversations with the cameraman and with one of the criminalists as to how best to create that evidence, how best to edit it, how best to present it to the jury, and we ended up never using it. Probably I should not have released those comments to the Defense on the ground that they are privileged work product, but I was confident that there was so little to them that I just gave them the entire tape and didn't realize until later that I shouldn't have done so.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, I don't see any relevancy to them and I don't know why counsel would want to play those.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I ask Miss Mazzola to please step out during this discussion?
THE COURT: Sure. How long is this videotape?
MR. NEUFELD: Seven, eight minutes maybe.
THE COURT: Do you intend on having the audio portion with counsel's comments?
MR. NEUFELD: Absolutely, your Honor, because--they are not just counsel's comments, your Honor; they are counsel's instructions to the witness on what to do at certain points. And not only is counsel giving instructions on what to do, but counsel is actually conveying certain important messages of bias to the witness during the course of that videotape.
THE COURT: When do you plan on using the videotape?
MR. NEUFELD: Maybe--maybe in about 45 minutes.
THE COURT: Let's see the tape.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
(At 1:35 P.M. a videotape was played.)
(At 1:45 the tape concludes.)
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. I take it from what Mr. Goldberg said he is not objecting to the playing of the tape, he is objecting to the sound portion, so I will restrict my comment to the sound portion. Your Honor, the portion I believe Mr. Goldberg is concerned with and doesn't want to be played for the jury goes as follows, we made actually a transcript of the one small segment which we believe is certainly relevant and should be played to the jury. And although we are not opposed to playing the rest of the sound track, it goes like this: By Mr. Goldberg. "Is there any way we can get out that little part where she dropped some of the swatches? "Answer: I don't think I got it. "MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you didn't?" Then by the camera operator: "But if it is on there, it is on there. "MR. GOLDBERG: No. I mean is there any way you can edit it out? "Camera: Of course. If it is on there, I will edit it out." By Mr. Goldberg. "But then will you have a gap? "Camera: No, it will be like two pieces of video cut together." One second.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I guess I'm not going to be winning the award at the Cannes Film Festival this year.
THE COURT: I would say Morris Dees is not shaking in his boots.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is kind of like watching ice cream melt, and I don't mean Haagen Das. And your Honor, what I've heard from the Defense here is really absurd and I think it is fairly clear what they are trying to do, and it should not be permitted, and what we have here is where the People are creating a piece of demonstrative evidence. And that is all that this is. It is clear from all of my comments that that is going on, including comments like "You don't need to collect more than one swatch because one is enough for them to get the general idea" or "Can you please turn this way so we can get a better shot of you filling out the card." We are entitled to create this piece of evidence and make it as perfect as we like. We are entitled, as I at one point thought of doing, adding graphics, adding sound, subtracting from the tape, adding to the tape. I could have scored it to the theme music of mission impossible if I had wanted to, which I actually thought of doing. We are entitled to create this any way we want to and what counsel is really trying to do is he is trying to suggest that there is something wrong or untoward that has gone on here in terms of the creation of this documentary piece of evidence. The distinction is that we are not documenting an event. We are not trying to record a historical event. What we are trying to illustrate--
THE COURT: Isn't the issue, though, work product and demonstration of demonstrative evidence? Isn't that the issue?
MR. GOLDBERG: I realize this, your Honor, and it is work product and I believed this was the kind of thing that Defense would not try to use that, there was no reason to redact it out, and then subsequently changed my mind after the tape had already been released to them. , I don't think it is relevant, I'm sure Mr. Neufeld would agree, and I probably should have, and it is my work product and my discussion and creation of an exhibit. And more importantly it is not relevant. I point out what we have in a chronology is where we have a situation that I talked about doing something that I'm entirely within my rights to do, but did not do, and maintained the evidence unedited and then turned it over unedited to the Defense. So the idea that they would come forward and try to argue that there is some impropriety where we have a situation where I am discussing doing something that I am entitled to do that I didn't do, and the only reason they know I even discussed it is because I turned it over for them and maintained it, and for them now to try to introduce this into this case as an issue is grossly improper and should not be allowed and it doesn't have any relevance whatsoever.
THE COURT: Briefly.
MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Two things, your Honor. Just so the record at least on how this tape is received is clear, in fact--
THE COURT: Counsel, I don't care how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: The issue is how you get over the work product problem and how do you get over a 352 objection.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, it is not work product, your Honor, because what we are introducing it for is simply his statements in the presence of this witness to influence her testimony on the witness stand. And any statements that a lawyer makes in the presence of a witness, which has the effect of influencing her testimony, is admissible because it goes to her bias. That is how it comes in. And even if it wasn't his intent, even if it wasn't his deliberate intent to influence her testimony, it has that effect and we are allowed to argue that it has this effect to this jury. That is an inference that they are permitted to draw. Clearly the statements were made in her presence. That is the point. That is not work product. And in terms of 352, I don't see that as a big problem here, your Honor, because certainly it has probative value as to whether or not he said in her presence, you know, let's try and get rid of the portion where you are making this mistake, where you are dropping these swatches. That is a very important message being conveyed to her that the Prosecution in this case wants to make this whole procedure look as simple as possible and wants to cover up any kind of mistakes that can and do happen.
THE COURT: Which is why they gave you the tape with her dropping the swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: They gave me the tape and they didn't even know it had the sound track on it. Initially I thought it was silent as well and he was going to edit out his comments, your Honor, and then we played it up and we found the volume was there. That is why. The reason he turned over the tape, your Honor, is because you ordered him to. You may recall we went into chambers and he said he had this tape and I laid a foundation with you and you said, "Mr. Goldberg, turn over this tape now."
THE COURT: Counsel, as I indicated to you, I'm not interested in how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand.MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, let's just jump ahead a second to the June 14th search you did of the Bronco at the print shed. Okay?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you mentioned that you did what is known as a phenolphthalein test on the accelerator, the brake pedal and the emergency brake pad; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you did those three tests, did you place a single swab of cotton on each of those three items? Is that what you did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told just to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, what?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you use one swab for all three? Is that what you are saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Who was it who told you that you should use the same swab to do a presumptive test for blood on three separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Prior to your going out there on June 14th had you received any instruction or training on the use of the phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when Mr. Fung, your supervisor that day on June 14th, told you to use the same single swab on three different items to test for the presence of blood, did you say to him, "Mr. Fung, Dennis, this is not what I'm supposed to be doing"? Did you say that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: He was your supervisor that day; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you just followed his directions; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
#316. To: nolu chan (#315)
And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs.
#317. To: misterwhite (#316)
"MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?"
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in your training at SID did they ever teach you to use what are called negative controls?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a negative control is.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is using the same item, be it a swatch or a swab, that you would use to collect a stain or to run a test. You run the test on the--a brand new different swab. It should be negative since nothing has been collected on the swab.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, when you did the phenolphthalein test with the single swab on the brake pedal, the emergency brake and the accelerator, you didn't use any negative control to see whether or not something else other than blood might be generating a false positive reaction, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, turning to the Bronco search and collection of evidence, you said that on the pedals, that you used the same swab for the purposes of the phenolphtalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that done?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung just wanted to see if the pedals had been manipulated as if someone had driven the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: As opposed to what?
MS. MAZZOLA: As opposed to just getting in the Bronco and then getting right back out.MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did they assist you or at least give you instructions during the course of this demonstration?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to that.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. NEUFELD: Did--who else was present besides Mr. Goldberg and the camera operators?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung and Mr. Yamauchi.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of your doing this demonstration, having these photographs taken, did any--did either Mr. Yamauchi or Mr. Fung give you any direction?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg give you some instructions?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Instructions."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No. I think counsel understands the parameters here.
MR. NEUFELD: During the time that you were actually doing the demonstration, did Mr. Goldberg give you any direction as to what to do?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I still think it is vague and overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what he means by "Instruction."
THE COURT: All right. Obviously this is a demonstration project, a piece of demonstrative evidence. I'm sure the jury understands it was created for this case. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of that did Mr. Goldberg give you specific instructions?
MS. MAZZOLA: As to what he wanted to depict, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the sequence there when you should do certain thing?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not the sequence.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you first set out to do this demonstration for Mr. Goldberg and the Prosecution, did the Prosecution attempt to record this demonstration with a videotape as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the video was shot at the same time that the still photographs were taken?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was your job during this videotape demonstration to act out the role of the criminalist collecting bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean this wasn't a real case, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me put this down now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That it might be shown to the jury.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so while the District Attorney was producing this videotape, you tried to perform the task of criminalist to the best of your ability; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And knowing that the videotape was meant to represent the process of bloodstain collection as practiced by you, you also tried to make it as realistic as possible; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the tape--have you seen the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. Was that ever said to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to show how simple it was. Just to show the procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: Did any Prosecutor ever express to you the importance of conveying to this jury that it's actually--that it is a simple procedure?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a simple procedure, but that-
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he said there was a chance it might.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact that on the videotape you are depicted dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you at all concerned that the videotape depicted you dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that was during one of the prep sessions.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you saying that the very first time you ever heard that question asked was when you took the witness stand here?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was mentioned when we were taking the photographs for the collection demonstration.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. At this time, your Honor, I would like to play the videotape.
THE COURT: All right. Let's mark it.
MR. NEUFELD: What's next in order?
THE COURT: 1117.
THE COURT: Well, you've seen your colleagues.
MR. NEUFELD: Exactly. All right.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, did you notice the date at the beginning of this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It says 4-4-95. Does that refresh your recollection as to when this videotape was made?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Do me a favor. I'm sorry, your Honor. Could you just go back to the beginning one more time? Can you stop there a minute?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, is that your--you're wearing leather gloves, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's your right hand that's now resting on the ground, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back up a few frames? That's good. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that your right hand that's resting on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say that the ground there outside on the street is dirty?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: You want to describe--unfortunately, Mr. Neufeld, since we don't have a real-time counter and if you're going to isolate particular items, you're going to need to describe them, either print them or describe them.
MR. NEUFELD: This will be 1117-A.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, can you continue?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola-
MR. NEUFELD: Stop again.
MR. NEUFELD: --did you just take the tweezers and put them--and move them from the left hand and transfer them to the right hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the right hand that you just had put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: What you're doing now is, you're making the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 5?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, on the dirty pavement outdoors like this, would you expect to see some kind of dirt or debris on the control swatch?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion.
MR. NEUFELD: Based on your experience.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not.
MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not. I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Even on an out-door pavement like this, you wouldn't expect to find some dirt?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility you would find some dirt.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it a probability that you would find some dirt, Miss Mazzola?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you put the plastic bag in the envelope at that point, you folded it over to seal it, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would retain the moisture in it, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would help keep the swatch from slipping out.
MR. NEUFELD: Other than preventing the swatches from slipping out, by folding over the top of the plastic bag when it's wet inside, that also will--that will also result in preserving the moisture in those swatches, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you make the control swatch, Miss Mazzola, you then clean the tweezers off before you go on to actually collect the bloodstain; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you freeze it there for a second?
MR. NEUFELD: And what you just did, ma'am, was to pick up--you're going to use that wet wipe or Kleenex to clean the tweezer, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The chem-wipe.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you just picked up that chem-wipe with the same right hand which you had been resting on the dirty concrete, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And are some of the swatches falling to the ground and missing the cap?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Is this the first time you knew that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you said you did know, however, that you had dropped swatches during the course of this videotape, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, comment had been made by others present about the fact that you had dropped swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--you also testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, that you had never dropped the swatch that had blood on it. Was that your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, had the Prosecutor told you during the prep sessions that it was safe for you to give that answer because we don't have you doing that on the videotape?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is improper. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: You also testified, Miss Mazzola, on direct examination that one reason--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You also testified that at crime scenes, your gloved hand has never touched a bloodstain or wet blood; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But isn't one reason why you wear these protective gloves in the first place is because you could accidentally touch a bloodstain or wet blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We wear them for our own protection because we are around blood.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you wear these gloves for your own protection, Miss Mazzola, isn't that protect--isn't that to protect you from an accidental contact with blood? Isn't that the whole purpose you wear the gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: Blood among other things, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it's anticipated by the people who taught you at SID to wear gloves that accidental contact between a criminalist and blood does happen from time to time; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So when you say that you have never touched blood or a wet bloodstain even with your protected gloves on, what you're really saying is that you've never done it such as that you're aware of it; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Such that I was aware of, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, this is going to be the swatch of the actual evidence, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you stop there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it's a little hard to tell. It's possible-
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you actually see any discoloration in the area immediately adjacent to that bloodstain in this picture before you put that wet control swatch on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see the area slightly in front of the swatch between the swatch and the stain itself.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't the area at that point, Miss Mazzola, fairly consistent and not darker, appreciably darker in the area--in the immediate area where you're placing down the control swatch at this point? Isn't that a fair assessment of what's depicted here, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it looks slightly darker to me, but-
MR. NEUFELD: Now, could you go forward to where she's about to put down the--yeah. Go a little bit further. Slow it down. In slow-mo. That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now do you see the discoloration created by the moisture emanating out from the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's a different color than the other discolorations in the pavement, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. All right. And you can see even at that point the moisture has almost touched the bloodstain, hasn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to almost.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There's still separation between the two.
MR. NEUFELD: There's still some separation there. Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, go forward to the next place where we're about to collect the evidence.
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was ever mentioned.
MR. NEUFELD: well, Miss Mazzola, if in fact that swatch itself had been contaminated by your dirty hand, for instance, would the contamination be transferred to the moisture that is emanating out from the swatch? Could that happen?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which swatch.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know if it could happen?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it could happen.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if there was dirt on your hand and your hand came into contact with the control swatch, would you agree that it's possible that there could be a transfer of that trace evidence of that contaminant from your glove to the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would be possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if that control swatch was moistened with water, that there could be a transfer of trace evidence from the swatch to the water?
MS. MAZZOLA: There would be items from the ground in the water, but the bloodstain itself is on the ground. So it's all in the same substrate.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that assumes, does it not, Miss Mazzola, that everywhere on the ground, you have the same contaminants and the same substrate? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That close a substrate would be approximately the same.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you put your right hand down on the ground, you didn't do that two inches away or one inch away from the blood drop. You did that several feet away, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And if your hand came into contact, the hand that touched the dirty pavement several feet away came into contact with the control swatch, it could contaminate the control swatch with whatever contaminant your right hand came in contact with, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If the hand came in contact with that particular swatch, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And if that swatch then comes into contact with water, the water can pick up that contaminant, can't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility.
MR. NEUFELD: And if that water then spreads outward and actually comes into contact with the bloodstain, then the bloodstain can come into contact with the very same contaminant that the right hand initially came into contact with. Isn't that a possibility?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But it's your testimony that you were never instructed to keep the control swatch moisture not in contact with the bloodstain? They never taught you that at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was never a strong point that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it a small point that was brought up?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: So is it--best of your recollection, it could have been, but you just don't recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, would it make sense to you as a criminalist not to let the moisture from the control swatch come into contact with the bloodstain?
MS. MAZZOLA: That would be preferable.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the coin envelope is not sealed, is it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. Not sealed.
MR. NEUFELD: Now you're cleaning the tweezers again?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, Miss Mazzola, you're holding the tweezers in your right hand now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Same right hand that touched the ground, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: My right hand.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And is that your right hand hitting the ground again?
MS. MAZZOLA: My hand was on the ground, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Notice you're stretching.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it tiring bending down there to do even a single swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. When it is extremely cold, my left knee tends to tighten up a bit.
MR. NEUFELD: And in this instance, you're actually brushing away the swatches that you actually dropped to the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung were also present during this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Yamauchi was.
MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Yamauchi-- I thought you said Dennis Fung was there as well.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you hold it a second, please?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe he was back and forth between the demonstration area and the lab itself.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you actually collected the swatch, were your knees on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you back up? Back up to just where she's about to get up.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you now putting your left hand on your knee?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the knee that was just on the pavement?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was on the pavement.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when--you're wiping the ground now with your right hand, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't change gloves before you went on to the next swatching, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Hold it one second. You're going forward. What are you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Again, your right hand with the tweezers is going down to the dirty ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Is on the ground.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that the pavement outside where you're shooting this has dirt on it, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola-
MR. NEUFELD: Let's stop for one second.
MR. NEUFELD: I notice in the demonstration board, when you're actually--when they show you either using the control swatch or swatch on a piece of evidence, you don't see any of the swatches that are lying on the ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: That they don't show any swatches lying on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: After you finished making this videotape, did the Prosecutor ask you to repeat the exercise again?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it-
MR. NEUFELD: Hold it.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it coming into contact with the portion of the bloodstain that moves out in an arm to the right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that it is.
MR. NEUFELD: One second. Can you just back it up a little bit, please, about five seconds? Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, see the dirt on the fingertips of the third and fourth fingers of your glove?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue. Stop.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you were having some difficulty getting the swatch to get onto the stain there, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Slow down. Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: And so now you've moved your fingers on the dirty glove that had been in contact with the pavement down toward the tip of those tweezers, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are still a ways away from the tip.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand that. But you've moved them down away from the position they were normally in to try and get that swatch to come off the tip, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the same hand that had the dirt on the fingers, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, between the collection--now you're collecting item no. 6; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, between the collection of item 5 and item no. 6, you never changed your gloves, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you never changed your gloves is because no one at SID ever taught you to change your gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: They don't need to teach you when to change your gloves. You change your gloves periodically.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did anyone at LAPD SID ever teach you to change your gloves between the handling of different blood stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that one of the procedures that you have been taught--
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught as part of your instruction on forensic photography to have a ruler placed in the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you use a ruler when doing this demonstration to indicate--for purposes of documenting the stain, the size of the stain?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you not do that because the Prosecutors didn't tell you to do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't do that, but no one told me not to.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
MS. MAZZOLA: Two I believe.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that additional training and more experience makes you more proficient today than you were 10 months ago?
MS. MAZZOLA: Experience helps.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting blood or bloodstains, mistakes can occur?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mistakes can happen, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting bloodstains, especially in evidence that's going to go out for DNA analysis, that the criminalist must understand how in the course of making different mistakes DNA could become degraded?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think we bear in mind DNA specifically. We look at any serological testing.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught at the SID mini academy any connection at all between the mistakes that can happen at a crime scene and the effects it will have on DNA or other serological testing?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, the wet swatches, Miss Mazzola, were placed in the truck in brown paper bags; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Does the LAPD SID unit have a written procedure for storing biological evidence in the van?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there's a refrigerator in the van, isn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Fung instruct you to put the bloodstain swatches in the refrigerator?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see Fung put them in the refrigerator, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that or were you aware of the fact that the refrigerator worked at least some of the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was aware that it worked some of the time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that it would work for several hours eventually before the battery going dead?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure how long it would work.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you ever been aware of the fact that it did work for more than one or two hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I ever found that out.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't find out how long it did work for?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that even a few hours of keeping wet blood swatches in the refrigerator is better than not keeping them there at all?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you had been told by people at LAPD SID that heat can have some effect on bacteria growing on the blood swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I assume there's some other witness who is going to testify to these events.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 12 is more than a single drop of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If I remember correctly, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, it is three drops of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not exactly sure how many.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the other drops of blood that you or bloodstains that you collected from the driveway that day, they were all individual drops; were they not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you taught, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you have distinct drops, even if they're close together, that they should be collected in separate packages?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was up to the discretion of the supervisor.
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show 14-
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: 1118? 1118.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--also look at that. Do these two pages represent a handout that you received at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. They look familiar.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in the handout that you received from the SID mini academy, weren't you told specifically, quote, if there is more than one distinct stain, these should be treated as different stains and collected separately?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's what the handout says.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And, Miss Mazzola, does it anywhere in that handout say, "Oh, but wait a second. You can make an exception if the senior criminalist says to"?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive any written instructions at all from LAPD SID suggesting that you could make an exception from that rule when the senior criminalist so chose?
MS. MAZZOLA: There is nothing written down.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, even on the demo board that we just looked at, Miss Mazzola, items 5 and 6 are only several inches apart, aren't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe--well, what do you call by several?
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that items 5 and 6 are within a foot of one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: They could be within a foot, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, I believe you said that you had also been taught it wasn't necessary to pick up every single drop in a area, but only to pick up representative drops; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, other than the three drops that you saw in the foyer where you picked up item no. 12, weren't there some other small drops in the vicinity that you didn't bother to collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I saw any other little drops around that area or not.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: Just for foundation for the next question.
THE COURT: That's what she said.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, from what you've just said, the greater number of drops that you saw in any particular area was that concentration of drops in the foyer inside the front door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is that photograph showing at least three different blood drops?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the foyer near the card no. 12?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that that was the only blood drops or bloodstains that you observed on the first floor of the house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after you collected those blood drops in item no. 12 in the foyer near the front door, that you then walked up the stairway?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we started going upstairs, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the light carpet on the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you examined that light carpet on the stairs, there was absolutely no bloodstains seen there at all, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were looking, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And wasn't Dennis Fung looking?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And he didn't say he observed any either, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were not only looking for blood drops at that point, you were also looking for dry flecks of blood as well, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Anything that was red.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see anything that was red on this white carpet ascending all the way up the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember what color the carpet was.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it light color ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was light, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It was the kind of color that if there was a red drop, it would stand out, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then as you walked down the hallway on that second floor toward Mr. Simpson's bedroom, there was also that same light colored carpeting, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall. Could be. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you--you were examining the floor, weren't you, at that point?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any blood drops there either, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any flecks of blood, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you examined that stairway going up the stairs, ma'am, did you examine the banister also?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And on the banister, ma'am, there were no flecks of blood, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung personally observe them in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And on that banister, there were no flecks of blood either, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not see any.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't mention any to you, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And if you had seen them, you would have collected them, wouldn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would have photographed them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And also on that banister, ma'am, there were no smears of blood, were there, indicating that somebody had blood on their hands? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not recall seeing anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't observe any either that he mentioned to you, did he?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung in your presence say to you that he had observed any smears of blood on the banister?
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, why don't you rephrase that question; did Mr. Fung point out to you any blood smears, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: You can answer the Judge's question.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
#318. To: nolu chan (#317)
"such a test is useless to establish whether anyone drove the car rather than just got in and back out."
#319. To: nolu chan (#317)
"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."
#320. To: misterwhite (#318)
Uh-huh. Why would they get in with bloody shoes then immediately get out?
#321. To: misterwhite (#319)
"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."
#322. To: all (#319)
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice?
MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves.
MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you--do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you were at a crime scene and collecting evidence, is it your habit to, if you see something on your gloves or see some blood or trace on your gloves, to change them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the glove and the hat were in close proximity?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, did you do this document on your own initially or did Mr. Fung do it together with you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Initially it was mine.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then did you call Mr. Fung's attention to it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you put in the time for item no. 17, 17:20--that is what it says, 17:20, where did you get that from?
MS. MAZZOLA: From Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that 5:20?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It came from him and not an analyzed--and not an analyzed envelope or another piece of paper?
MS. MAZZOLA: He told me. I don't--that is all I know.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you get the time nine o'clock for the "Removed item 9, 19"?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I glanced at the clock while he was working on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the 8:30 time for the "Received" for item no. 18?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was from Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you present when any pair of sneakers was handed over?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after you created this document and then brought it to Mr. Fung's attention, what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted the numbers--sample item numbers changed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted to keep the items in chronological order as they had been received.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after you created this document and then brought it to Mr. Fung's attention, what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted the numbers--sample item numbers changed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted to keep the items in chronological order as they had been received.
MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your own experience as a criminalist, is there any advantage to doing that in terms of other reports that need to be done, such as property reports?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, when they are kept in chronological order as to the day they were received, on the property reports you can put all of the items received on the same day on the property report. If they were out of order, you would have to generate a new property report for each item.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was trying to put them in the order that Mr. Fung wanted, 17, 18 and 19, and had started to write "Received in serology," meaning the tennis shoes, and Mr. Fung wanted it kept 18 first, then 17 and then 19.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he just changed those item numbers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right, yeah.
#323. To: all (#319)
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And notwithstanding, Miss Mazzola, yours and Dennis Fung's testimony that upon arrival at Rockingham that he announced that he would be the officer in charge, that on the vehicle search checklist which you began to fill out--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that even though you had been informed in advance of filling out the vehicle search checklist that he would be the officer in charge, that you nonetheless put yourself down as the officer in charge on that vehicle search checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You continued to have that title throughout?
MS. MAZZOLA: Title-
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Title."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, your title on that report was never changed; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, there were times when you collected blood stains unassisted by a supervising criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Also vague as to "Critical evidence."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know what their policy is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: When you are trained on how to collect evidence, you don't make mistakes on how to pick it up.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you are saying that it is impossible for you to make a mistake at a crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking her a question.
MS. MAZZOLA: I collect the evidence the way I was trained. That is the only way I know how to do it.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never heard of any?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have never heard of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I'm not a supervising criminalist. I don't know what their guidelines are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: That they have one.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I am not familiar with that, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, has it ever been given to you to look at?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Has anyone ever instructed you to read it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any written manual, ma'am, that you rely on when you go out to process evidence at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any book distributed to you to instruct you on how to conduct crime scene investigation?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: We have been shown the notes before, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And these crime scene checklists and field notes are a series of reports and forms that you are expected to accurately and completely fill out in connection with crime scene investigations; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is compound, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to fill in the parts that were the most important.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you told, ma'am, to fill out these reports and forms contemporaneously with the activities that you are engaged in?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, in your Los Angeles Police Department-- I think you said you attended the mini academy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I testified something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that it was only after you finished testifying on August 23rd and you had testified to this duty to fill—fill these reports out completely, that when you then got back to the—the L.A. Police Department SID lab, that individuals for the first time said, no, no, no, it is not necessary to fill them out completely? Isn't that what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I had seen other criminalists fill out portions; some fill out the entire form.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I asked you didn't you believe that up until August 23rd, when you testified in this case, that is, for the first seven or eight months of your employment, that you were required to fill out these reports completely?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Not just to fill out portions, but to fill them out in totality; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: States facts not in evidence as to "Requirements."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item on the form is "Time," the time each item is collected; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item that you are--that up until August 23rd you also believed you were required to fill out was "By whom" the item was collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so, ma'am, if as recently as August 23rd you believed you were required to fill out these reports completely, you also operated under that belief when you were present on June 13th and June 14th to participate in the crime scene investigation in Mr. Simpson's case; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: That page does not look familiar to me.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, separate and apart from actually receiving a handout, at some point at this mini academy did your instructors ever teach you that it was very important, in terms of your professional responsibility, to make accurate and complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that something that they taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that if swatches, for instance, were not properly marked, packaged and identified, they could get mixed up?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that if items of evidence were not properly packaged and identified, it made it easier for someone to tamper with those items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: You never received any instruction at all, during your entire time at this mini academy, on taking measures to avoid evidence tampering?
MS. MAZZOLA: No one would tamper with the evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object. I think this has been covered.
THE COURT: That is a new question. You can answer that question.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you got back to the laboratory, either on June 13th or on June 14th, did you tell Dennis Fung that he hadn't kept complete and accurate field notes for June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't tell Mr. Fung anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to either Miss Kestler, the head of the laboratory, did you go to her and tell her that the person you were working with that day did not comply with the requirement as you believed at that time, that is, to keep complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to Mr. Matheson, the no. 2 person, and tell him that your teammate had failed to follow the requirement of keeping field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that it was a requirement.
THE COURT: Sustained. Did you tell anybody about this?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember being taught that at all?
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have been taught. I don't remember.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: and in fact there is four lines that follow that question; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact number of lines.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, they leave you space so you can answer those questions, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree, ma'am, that that is a very important question, isn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Important."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it relevant to the overall investigation to know whether a crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, ma'am, if a crime scene has been altered it could render subsequent scientific analysis unreliable, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have the experience to answer that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, for instance, if a blanket, for instance, okay, was used to alter the crime scene and it left trace evidence where there had been none previously, that could render an analysis of certain trace evidence unreliable, couldn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And that is why the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division has asked you to fill out this question, "Has the scene been altered and if so by whom and how"; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it correct, ma'am, that the reason that they asked you to investigate whether the crime scene had been altered is because they don't want you to assume it hasn't been; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: We do not investigate who has been in the crime scene area.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, are you required to investigate whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: What do you mean by "Investigate"?
MR. NEUFELD: Are you required to make a determination as to whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: isn't that what SID wants you to do when you get to a crime scene, ma'am?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would ask that he not badger the witness.
THE COURT: We are close.
MS. MAZZOLA: Was the last question--I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague and overbroad as to "Determination."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?
MS. MAZZOLA: Just get an idea of who had been there.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they went into depth in that--with that question.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in the morning, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And you then went out and you went to the Bronco on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the reason you went out with Dennis Fung on the 14th to the Bronco because it is a standard L.A. Police Department SID procedure that once a criminalist becomes involved in the case, he or she continues with the case and subsequent searches and investigations?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: For the most part? There are exceptions to that?
MS. MAZZOLA: If you are absolutely unable to get away, if you had to go to Court or something like that, another criminalist would step in.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But aside from either illness or--or you have responsibilities testifying in Court, it is the standard procedure at LAPD that once a criminalist is assigned to a case that he or she sticks with it for each of the searches; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That is why you went back on the 14th to the Bronco with Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But in this case, ma'am, you didn't stick with this case beyond the 14th, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct. Well, I take that back. We did go for the Bentley.
MR. NEUFELD: What day was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my-
MR. NEUFELD: Please.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) It was on the 30th.
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And on June 28th you did not participate with Dennis Fung in the search of Mr. Simpson's home, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: On each of those occasions, to your knowledge, Mr. Fung had another team member, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.
MR. NEUFELD: If you know?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
THE COURT: You can answer the question.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: And on July 3rd, when Mr. Fung went back out to Bundy on a crime scene investigation, you didn't go with him on that occasion either?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th were you in Court testifying?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you out sick?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you in Court testifying?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MS. MAZZOLA: Magenta pink, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Turns that magenta pink color, it is not a definitive result; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, all it means is, is that the stain could possibly be blood, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And the test that you do, this phenolphthalein test, it certainly isn't a test for human blood; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in your training at this--at SID, umm, did you learn in fact that there are many other substances, other than blood, which can also give you that magenta color, which aren't blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, that some of them are the juices from common vegetables and fruits?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And each time that you set out to collect blood stains in this case, for each stain that you collected, Miss Mazzola, weren't you instructed to collect as much of the stain as you possibly could collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you were supposed to collect the entire visible stain; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it would be--and you were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching that blood stain until the blood was completely collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: To get as much up as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact you have been taught by the laboratory that it was important to get as much up as possible in the event that DNA testing might be considered?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was also just for a basic serology; not necessarily DNA.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on the morning of the 14th you arrived at the print shed around 10:30?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. NEUFELD: Please.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, do you have an independent recollection of what time you arrived?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Then please do.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) Yes, it was around 10:30.
MR. NEUFELD: And you stayed there for approximately three hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, approximately.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you were there during those three hours the press wasn't there to distract you, were they?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not see them.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there was--was there a large group of detectives with you when you were at the print shed?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: so they weren't--so the detectives weren't distracting you either that day, were they?
MS. MAZZOLA: The detectives were really not a distraction to begin with.
MR. NEUFELD: In other words, Miss Mazzola, when you were at the print shed on the 14th you were able to pursue your tasks conscientiously and professionally as best you could; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: As we did on the 13th, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so was Dennis Fung, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And during those three hours that you were at the Bronco on June 14th, you made a systematic examination of the outside of that car, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, Mr. Fung and myself, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you systematically examined the entire exterior of the Bronco for even the smallest yet visible specks of blood; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you looked on the fenders, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: We looked at the outside.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the fenders are part of the outside, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Hum?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You looked on the doors?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Top and bottom?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you pointed out to Dennis Fung every single stain that you noticed, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: He was a little better at picking out the stains than I was.
MR. NEUFELD: And Dennis Fung pointed out every stain that he noticed to you, didn't he?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that on June 14th Dennis Fung never pointed out to you any dark red stains on the white metal portion of the sill on the driver's door, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, did he point out any stains to you on that car?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the exterior?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember him pointing out some stains, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you remember him pointing out a stain outside the passenger door; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember that independently?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today you have no independent recollection of Dennis Fung ever pointing out to you any small stains on the sill of the driver's door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: It came up, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And-
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, the only stains or smears that you saw anywhere on the exterior of the car on the 14th was a couple of tiny specks on the passenger door, isn't that correct, on the exterior passenger door?
MS. MAZZOLA: From independent recollection, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well-
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show this.
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: Defense-
THE CLERK: 1113.
THE COURT: --1113.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Show you Defendant's 1113. Is that picture familiar to you? Do you recognize it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And what is it a picture—I'm sorry. Is that a photograph of what is item 20 in this case that you referred to on direct examination?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me make sure it's the right-
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is item 20.
MR. NEUFELD: That's on the passenger side, correct, the opposite side?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you said you had been taught that if you had seen other stains or smears on the exterior of the car, that you had been taught that they too would have been photographed, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you had also been taught, ma'am, that if you saw stains that could possibly be blood, that you were--you were also instructed to swatch them, is that correct, and bring them back to the laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: If they were pheno positive, yes, we would collect them.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you were instructed then to do a pheno test as well on stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: If there was any question, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And obviously no pheno test was done on any portion of the driver's sill on the 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--well, let me ask you this. If a pheno test was done, would it be recorded in your notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would you please look at your notes to see whether or not any pheno test was done on the sill of the driver's door to the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, one was not done.
MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me?
MS. MAZZOLA: One was not done.
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the speck in the lower circle, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't see any of those on the 14th, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. Miss Mazzola, you didn't see them on the morning of the 13th either, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't-
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact that she looked.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: On the 13th, I don't believe I was looking that carefully.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you were shown the car on the 13th by the detectives, didn't you? Weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you walked over with the detectives and Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, I think you said that you personally even swatched the stain on the handle of the Bronco, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that stain was pointed out to you by Detective Fuhrman, wasn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure which one pointed it out.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were there when Detective Fuhrman pointed it out to--oh, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You were at the Bronco with Dennis Fung and the detectives when one of the detectives pointed out a small speck near the handle on the driver's door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And at that point in time, when that speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung, no other speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung on the exterior of the car; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember. I just remember the one on the driver's handle.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, with respect to your independent recollection, Miss Mazzola, as it stands today, is it fair to say that you have no independent recollection of any detective showing you any other speck or stain on that car other than the speck next to the driver's handle?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall, no.
MR. NEUFELD: That's what I'm asking you. Your independent recollection, from what you can recall.
MS. MAZZOLA: My independent recollection, no.
MS. MAZZOLA: Up in the area where they were removing the bodies.
MR. NEUFELD: Was he on the sidewalk or was he on the steps?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you have any idea what he was doing when he was in there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, now that you've done that examination, okay, of that crime scene that day, you do know that he wasn't removing perishable or other small items near the bodies; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and answer.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe that he was removing any perishable items at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: Nor was he removing any small items that were in close proximity to the bodies, was he?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. He did not appear to be, no.
MS. MAZZOLA: If I may check my notes.
MR. NEUFELD: Sure. You don't have an independent recollection as to what time you arrived?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not independent recollection, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately around 7:00 A.M., yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you didn't even bother collecting any of the stains until 8:15; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to didn't bother. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry. You didn't collect any of the stains until at least 8:15; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the time?
MR. NEUFELD: Sure.
MS. MAZZOLA: The stain on the Bronco was collected approximately 8:15.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that was the first stain to be collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: And the stains in the driveway were collected after that, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung ask the detectives that in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you collected the drop on the Bronco, it was still--it was not until 9:00 o'clock that you began picking up the other drops in the driveway; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the notes?
MR. NEUFELD: Please do.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Approximately 9:00 A.M.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So at this point, you had already been at the scene, ma'am, an hour and a half approximately; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not quite an hour and a half.
MS. MAZZOLA: Something like that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, at SID that the photographs should have some scale in it so a person who's looking at the photograph will know how big the object is?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to what type of photograph.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we were or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let me--just for a second, look at what is here in this picture, photograph b on Prosecution's exhibit 120. Do you see it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you see a red stain in the picture?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if there was no ruler in that picture, you would have-- a viewer would have no idea how large that stain is? Would you agree?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: and isn't it true that because of that fact, you were taught at SID that it is important to put some kind of scale or ruler in a photograph so when someone looks at the photograph, they will have an idea as to how large the stain is?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is possibility, to have a ruler in the scene.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you whether it's a possibility, ma'am. I'm asking you whether or not your instructors at the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division taught you that for forensic photography, that you should put or instruct the photographer to put a ruler in the picture when you take a picture of a bloodstain so that anyone else who is looking at it will know how big the stain is.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they told us that. Forensic photographers know how to photograph evidence. It's up to them.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't the job of the criminalist to instruct and direct the forensic photographer at the scene? Isn't that one of your responsibilities?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the supervising Criminalist's responsibility.
MS. MAZZOLA: Not as to how, but which items he wanted photographed.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it--weren't you instructed, Miss Mazzola, to make sure there was comprehensive coverage of each item of evidence at the crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you instructed, ma'am, to make sure that the forensic photographer takes close-up shots as well as distant shots of each item of evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Photographers are trained to-
MR. NEUFELD: I--I'm sorry.
MS. MAZZOLA: Go ahead.
MR. NEUFELD: I asked whether you were instructed to make sure that that happens, you being a criminalist.
MS. MAZZOLA: We were given information on the way the forensic photographers photograph crime scenes.
MR. NEUFELD: And who brings the numbers that are put down to identify different items for the photographer to take pictures of?
MS. MAZZOLA: We do.
MR. NEUFELD: That's your job, the criminalist, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: You set the item numbers down?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And I believe you said on direct examination that Dennis Fung was not with you when you collected item 7 and item 8 at Rockingham; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And he was with you when items 4, 5 and 6 were collected; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 4 is shown--I'm sorry--in photograph a, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 5 and 6 is shown in photograph c, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, in items 5 and 6, is there a ruler in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung instruct the photographer to place a ruler in the photograph?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
MR. NEUFELD: In your presence.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. Is there a ruling on--
THE COURT: No. You rephrased the question. I assume you withdrew it and rephrased it.
MR. NEUFELD: No. I rephrased it for the--okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: In my presence, no.
MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's for item 7, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 7, Dennis Fung wasn't with you when you collected it, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the person that was with you when you collected item 7 was a--one of the most senior supervisors in the whole SID, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And what's his name?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson.
MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Johnson direct that the "N" in the arrow be placed in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you direct that it be placed in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that for the drops at Bundy, there is no ruler in any of those photographs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is so.
MR. NEUFELD: You believe it's so, that there is no ruler in any of those photographs?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so would you also agree that there is no record for the size of any of these bloodstains at Bundy--of the drops on the walkway?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you also agree that all blood drops are not the same size?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is definitely correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today 10 months later, do you have an independent recollection of the size of each bloodstain at Rockingham and Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And at any time while you were at Rockingham and Bundy, did Dennis Fung instruct you to note the size of each of the bloodstains in writing on the field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant and under 352, I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you do that at the direction of Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you did the phenolphtalein test and it came up magenta, pink, you collected that swatch, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And to your knowledge, to this day, Miss Mazzola, has any confirmatory test ever been done to make sure that that speck was human blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Do you know if any confirmatory test was done on that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung assisted on a few of the drops.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say that Dennis Fung assisted on a few of the drops, what do you mean by that?
MS. MAZZOLA: That he also took some swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: And on which items did he--do you now say that he also took some swatches?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this has been asked and answered, this whole thing.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: You say this morning that Dennis Fung assisted you on some of the stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you say what you mean by assisting you, that he took some of the swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you mean that for some items, you took some swatches and he took some swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: so on each of the items, you personally took swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: But at least as to some, he also took some swatches; is that correct? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, when you testified on direct examination or on cross-examination last Thursday, didn't you say that with respect to items 4, 5 and 6, that Dennis Fung alone was the collector of those items and not you? Wasn't that your testimony just this last Thursday? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if it was or not.
MS. MAZZOLA: If you have it, I guess I did.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't recall?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, motion to strike the witness' answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you prefer to actually read it yourself, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. That's--that's fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Huh?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'll take your word for it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would make a motion to strike the comment-
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--
THE COURT: Overruled. Excuse me, counsel. When other counsel is making an objection, would you at least allow them to finish?
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: So, Miss Mazzola, on Thursday, you testified that you were not involved in the collection of 4, 5 and 6 and that Dennis Fung collected that; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time, I thought that Mr. Fung alone had, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That was as recently as last Thursday?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And now today, you have a different recollection of what transpired back on June 13th, 1994? Is that your testimony, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, 1994, at that point, it was your recollection, was it not, that you had personally collected all the blood drops at Rockingham; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any notes to refresh your recollection between Thursday and today that led you to change your mind from Thursday to today's testimony with respect to who collected what on items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any videotapes to refresh your recollection so that you would change your memory as to who collected what portions of 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Videos, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any documents to refresh your recollection that you didn't have available to you last Thursday so you could have a different memory as to who collected what with respect to items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Documents, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with any members of the Prosecution staff between last Thursday and today with regard to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung between Thursday and today as to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: But you now say that it's your recollec--that your recollection has changed your memory of what your involvement was with regard to items 4, 5 and 6 from just this last Thursday to today; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, it would be fair to say-- I think you said it earlier--that you never wrote down in your notes which of you collected which items; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so the only way you can recall or testify as to who collected which items is strictly from your independent recollection; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Has your memory of who collected which items been aided by the prep sessions that you had with the Prosecutors in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And on August 23rd, 1994, ma'am, would you agree that the events of June 13th were fresher in your mind than they are now 10 months later?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily fresher.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, ma'am, that your memory of an event that happened two months previously is stronger than your memory of an event that happened 10 months previously?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that question is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I had not thought of the events of June 13th since we had gotten done with the property reports up until the time I walked into this courtroom for the griffin hearing.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that your memory of an event that happened two months prior to your testifying is fresher than it is when you've had 10 months gone by?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, Miss Mazzola, June 13th, you collected these items; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: That and Mr. Matheson's notes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Mr. Matheson's notes were the original notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if they were the originals or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the notes that—well, were they copies of the notes that you and Dennis Fung took then on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: They could have been copies, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Or originals?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And what those notes were the sum total of all the notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th at Bundy and Rockingham; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would constitute the field notes and the crime scene inspection list that this jury has already seen; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are no other notes, are there, that were prepared by you that you've used to refresh your recollection today?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were no other notes other than those notes that you relied upon to refresh your recollection when you testified on August 23rd; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, ma'am, isn't it a fact that there was no way—there is no note saying which items you personally collected and which items Dennis Fung personally collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so between August 23rd and today, ma'am, it's not as if you've had additional notes to look at which will help you to remember which items Dennis Fung collected as opposed to which items you collected; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained as phrased.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, are there any other notes other than your field notes that you got from Mr. Matheson that day that indicate which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are no notes, ma'am, or reports that were prepared by you that you looked at on August 23rd which indicated which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Badgering the witness in terms of testimony.
THE COURT: We're there. All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Can I just ask two more questions and I'll finish this area?
THE COURT: Two more. Slower though. However, the Court reporter is about to go on us.
MR. NEUFELD: So both today and on August 23rd, you're relying exclusively on your independent recollection as opposed to any documentary evidence to recall which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Memory and photographs.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you--do you--have you seen a single photograph showing Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the Griffen hearing, I did not have a chance to look at the photographs before.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, I'm simply asking you this, please. Have you seen a single photograph between June 13th and this morning or this afternoon that shows Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: --you said Dennis Fung wasn't even there to observe; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that one yourself, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, this chart here, this LAPD evidence disposition summary, says for item no. 7 "Collected," it says, "Fung and Mazzola, 6/13/94." Do you see that? If you want to step down, please do.
MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen it when you put it up.
MR. NEUFELD: That is not correct? You are the person who collected item number-
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to what he means by "Collect."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I physically swatched it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, on August 23rd when you were asked questions about what you collected, you understood the word "Collect" to mean that you physically swatched and collected those swatches; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that is your--you understood the meaning--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You understood the word "Collect" to mean that on August 23rd, and that is the normal way that you use the word "Collect"; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So again, Miss Mazzola, on this Prosecution exhibit where it says "No. 7," "Item no. 7 Fung and Mazzola collected by," that is not correct? It was only collected by you, Miss Mazzola; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was collected by me, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check on that.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected item 47, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. 47 was-
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MS. MAZZOLA: I did. Mr. Fung managed to get a little more blood off of that one spot, but I collected the majority of it.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what--can I see what you are looking at now to refresh your recollection?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm just looking at this, because this is the one that was at the corner of the house, the first drop on the trail.
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that was correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you thought that was correct when you testified on August 23rd also, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that item, too, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 49, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that as well, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: There was one other drop on the trail that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember which one it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you met with Dennis Fung at this discussion that you had after August 23rd and you reviewed with him who collected what, didn't you put down that you, only you, Mazzola, collected item 49?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I did, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as respect to item no. 50, weren't you the only person who collected that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my sketch.
MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as to item 52, you were the only person who collected that, too, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Mr. Fung wasn't even observing you collect item 52, was he?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 52? No, Mr. Fung was not there.
MR. NEUFELD: So the Prosecutor's diagram where it says, for instance, on item 52 "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that is incorrect, isn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: As it stands there, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That is incorrect?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to item 50, Miss Mazzola, where the Prosecutor's exhibit says, "Item 50 collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, Miss Mazzola, where it says, "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect in the Prosecution's exhibit, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: That one I don't know about. As I said before, there is one stain on the path that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember exactly which one.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there is one stain-
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Let her finish the answer.
MR. NEUFELD: If there is one stain that you say that you have a recollection that he helped you collect, then as to the other stains on that walkway where it says, "Fung and Mazzola" collecting it, as to other stains, that would all be incorrect; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. 47 he helped with and there is one other that he helped with on this path.
MR. NEUFELD: So as to the other three, Miss Mazzola, this board would be incorrect; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, other than items a, b and c which were photographed but not collected, was there anything else worth documenting with a photograph on the driveway that was photographed?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: That was it, just the--just those drops, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and a, b and c; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure what else the photographer took pictures of.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that the blood drop that you have identified as no. 5--I'm sorry--as no. 6, as a and as b are all to the left side of the driveway as you walk in toward the house? Is that a fair statement?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, Detective Vannatter testified that it was his theory that Mr. Simpson had returned home the night of the 13th or the 12th, I'm sorry, and opened the gate and walked directly along the south side of this driveway toward the location where the glove was recovered?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is an improper question.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm laying a foundation, your Honor. It is a hypothetical.
THE COURT: All right. Assume that.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, the only blood stain that is on the south side of the driveway would be stain a; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Which wasn't collected by you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, no foundation that she knows.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know where the glove was collected, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know the area, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you had seen it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had not seen the glove before it was collected.
MR. NEUFELD: But you were shown the place where it had been collected by Mr. Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And by looking at this surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's house and property, can you see the approximate location where it was, approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, beginning at the curb and going to that location, approximately how many feet is that?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation that she knows.
THE COURT: Looking at that can you tell what the distance is?
MS. MAZZOLA: The approximate distance.
THE COURT: All right. What is the approximate distance?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately 250 feet from the curb.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And now, instead of the curb, if we come into the location of stain a, which is the one stain that is on the south side of the driveway, approximately how far is stain a from the curb, approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: From the curb?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately twenty feet or so.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. So would it be fair to say that the distance from stain a to the glove is approximately 230 feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Mr. Fung and myself looked at the driveway.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were examining the driveway for blood evidence, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you also examined the walkway on the south side of the house heading out to where the glove was recovered, did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it a fact that on that walkway, all the way to where the glove was recovered, you never saw any drop of blood on the sidewalk?
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the last two stains that you swatched and collected that morning were no. 7 and 8, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to no. 7 and 8, did you keep swatching those two drops until you had collected the entire blood stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall if I did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it your standard procedure to do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: To get up as much as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Oh, Okay. And to the best of your recollection did you get up as much of the stain that was visible as you possibly could?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: As to item 7 and item 8?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Visible."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I think I got up as much as I could.
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in DNA particular, that's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Are there any written guidelines in the--that you have received from the LAPD dealing with any of the particular problems encountered with DNA evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you received any handouts from the LAPD regarding the negative effects that heat and humidity have on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Reliability."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I know that it can affect them. I'm not sure to what extent.
MS. MAZZOLA: That it might have some effect on the testing, but I'm not sure to what extent or how it would be affected.
MR. NEUFELD: No one has told you how heat and humidity will affect blood stain evidence, only that it has an effect? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I don't know personally how much it would degrade, if at all, and over what period of time.
MR. NEUFELD: Ah, okay, but as you sit here today, it is your understanding that the effect of heat and humidity are that it can degrade the blood stain evidence; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is one possibility.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you fold over the top of the plastic bag so they don't fall out; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And sometimes these wet swatches that are in the plastic bag actually stick together, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: That happens.
MR. NEUFELD: Sometimes they even stick to the side of the plastic bag, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware that putting wet swatches in a plastic bag causes the swatches to retain moisture?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was not told that.
MR. NEUFELD: But you knew that anyway, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean, you know that just from your everyday experiences, that if you take a wet item and if you put it in a plastic bag and you close the top of the plastic bag, it is going to still be real moist in there, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: It will stay moist, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: As opposed to if you take the item out of the plastic bag and let it dry in the air it will dry much faster, won't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And did you know, prior to taking the witness stand today, that by keeping the swatches moist in that plastic bag that that can—I'm sorry. That that can promote the growth of bacteria on those swatches? Did you know that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence as phrased.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not really.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever had the common everyday experience of putting a wet item, such as a wet bathing suit or something, in a plastic bag and then taking it out hours later and it smells moldy? Has that ever happened to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I would say it smells moldy.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD--by the way, did you have these conversations with people at LAPD prior to June 13th, 1994, or since June 13th, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember exactly when it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember where it was?
MS. MAZZOLA: At work.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it just a casual conversation or was it one of the lectures at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not really sure.
MR. NEUFELD: And did any of these people, who you had these discussions with at work, talk to you about the combined effects of heat and humidity on a wet blood swatch kept in a sealed plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: well, did those people tell you, I think you said a moment ago, that heat can cause bacteria to develop? Isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a possibility that it could occur.
MR. NEUFELD: And that humidity, the moisture of the swatch in the sealed plastic bag can also possibly cause bacteria to develop as well? You were told that by these people at LAPD; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: For final booking, yes, that is entirely correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, were you given particular pages of the LAPD manual to know for booking evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you told by anybody at SID that the LAPD manual is simply a guideline and not rules which you are required to follow?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I heard it was to be used as a guideline.
MR. NEUFELD: And who told you that it was a guideline, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember offhand.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it one of your supervisors at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact, Miss Mazzola, that the Los Angeles Police Department manual states: "That all employees of the department are to conform with the rules and provisions herein contained"? Are you aware of that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that that statement from the Los Angeles Police Department manual declares that this manual sets directions for you and they are not simply guidelines, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm--
MR. NEUFELD: Would you like me to show you the actual section of the manual?
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. We have gone through this manual in front of this jury for approximately 45 minutes with another witness. You've already established what was done in this case. You've established what the manual says.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you stated that your understanding of the section in the LAPD manual on preserving wet stains is only instructions for final packaging, not temporary packaging; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any place in the actual rule listed in the LAPD manual that creates that exemption for temporary packaging?
MS. MAZZOLA: I-
MR. NEUFELD: Do you see that anywhere in the rules?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I haven't read it.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never read the LAPD manual section on how to preserve wet stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you are saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Have any of your instructors at the LAPD ever read to you the section from the Los Angeles Police Department manual on how to preserve wet stains at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual, no, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: No one in the whole year and a half that you have been there has ever read that to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never read it yourself?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: During the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department has anybody at the LAPD SID mini academy ever read to you this particular section of the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: I know in toxicology we receive our blood sample in the gray envelope.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you have been--I'm sorry. That is your only experience with--with receiving blood vials, would be in toxicology?
MS. MAZZOLA: Except for the occasion in this case which I had limited involvement with the blood.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in those cases where you receive a fresh--a fresh vial of blood, it is in the gray envelope; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And on the gray envelope under the word "Analyzed evidence," would you please tell the jury what it says.
MS. MAZZOLA: "To be refrigerated."
MR. NEUFELD: And that is an instruction to the person that holds that gray envelope that the evidence is to be refrigerated, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever been told by anyone, since you have been working at the Los Angeles Police Department SID, that it is perfectly okay, instead of refrigerating a blood vial, to leave it on a counter overnight in a trash bag? Has anyone ever told you that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone ever teach you at what rate blood breaks down and degrades?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone at SID mini academy ever teach you that it is okay to let wet blood stains remain in a sealed plastic bag in the rear of a truck in the middle of June for seven hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: It was never brought up at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
#324. To: all (#319)
Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 26 April 1995; EXCERPTS
MR. NEUFELD: You said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you know that you didn't do that then is because you saw it on the videotape; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did see a videotape, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is the reason you know that you didn't change your gloves then, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that point, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I think you testified that until you saw the videotape you didn't even have an independent recollection of having picked up the glove and the hat at Bundy that day; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure if I picked them up or Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so in the absence of independent--I'm sorry--so am I correct in stating that you didn't have an independent recollection of it until you actually saw the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: I could not remember, that is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Right-handed.
MR. NEUFELD: But you picked up the hat with your left hand; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--and could you go forward.
THE COURT: All right. Frame 13:51:46:18.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, at this point you are using the--obviously the same hands with the same gloves and you are opening up the bag, correct, for the next item?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next item is the glove, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you are--okay. Continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you used the same left hand to pick up the glove that you used to pick up the hat, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you used the same fingers, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I used the exact same fingers, but I used the same hand.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And Miss Mazzola, you didn't, in between picking up the hat and the glove, look down to see whether or not you had picked up any other biological material or any trace evidence on your hand, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, before you picked up the hat, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not you had any other biological matter on your fingertips, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, after you picked up the hat and put it in the bag, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not there was any trace evidence from the hat before you picked up the glove, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught to do that, ma'am, at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence from the hat can be transferred to the rubber glove--transferred to your rubber glove when you pick it up?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence that is on your rubber glove can then be transferred to the leather glove when you pick that up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Improbable since I handled other items between picking up the hat and the glove.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, did you say before that one way that trace evidence gets transferred from one object to another is when those two objects come in contact?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that not every time two objects come in contact does trace evidence move from one object to the next, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Depends on what type of items they are.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends on what kind of item they are, it depends where the fibers are; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends where the hairs are?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you could handle several different things and the hairs and fibers might not come off on the first thing or the second thing you touched, but might come off on the third item; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, initially on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, didn't you say that it wasn't necessary to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove because the two objects were touching? Did you testify to that on direct examination?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were in close contact, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify not that they were simply in close contact, but did you testify that they were actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I said touching or close contact.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree--I'm sorry. When you use the expression "Close contact," Does that mean touching or does that mean the two objects are close to one another but not actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could be anywhere from extremely close to each other to actually touching.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you mean it, when you said in close proximity, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Extremely close.
MR. NEUFELD: But not necessarily touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily touching.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you testified on direct examination last week in this case were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And did you change gloves in between collecting the hat and the glove? "Answer: No. "Question: Why not? "Answer: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers last week at this trial?
MS. MAZZOLA: Apparently so, yes. "very close proximity to each other."
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, after you testified to that, there was a recess, wasn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there was a recess or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, later on Mr. Goldberg asked you the same question again about the physical relationship to the hat and the glove, did he not? <
b>MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And just before you were asked those questions and you gave those answers at page 23790, were you sitting in this courtroom and present when--when Judge Ito said to you--
THE COURT: Wait, wait. Do you recall if there was a recess of any type in between those questions?
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly can't remember when the recesses are.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will--
MR. NEUFELD: Can I show her the transcript to refresh her recollection?
THE COURT: Wait, wait. We have a procedure called taking judicial notice of the Court's own proceedings. I will take judicial notice, and the jury is to assume to be true, that there was in fact a recess between those two sessions. It is a matter of the Court's own record. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, during that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Perhaps we can approach.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to counsel's insinuations.
THE COURT: Did you have any discussion with the Prosecutor or any attorney regarding this issue over the lunch recess, if you recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at a photograph.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And was that photograph shown to you by the Prosecutor?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall who showed it to me, but I saw a photograph.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't have your own? Someone else in this building had to show it to you; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was after you were shown those photographs or a photograph that you then changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw that they were extremely close but not touching, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I corrected it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, is it your position that the reason you didn't have to that change your gloves between picking up the hat and the glove is because the two items were in close proximity to one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you make that decision that two objects in close proximity but not touching don't require a change of gloves on your part, are you assuming that the hat and the glove were worn by the same person?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't assume anything.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't assume anything about that, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you don't know whether or not the hat and the glove were worn by the same person, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You certainly didn't know that at the time you were collecting the items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't even know when the items were placed at that location when you collected them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know whether those two items were placed on the ground at different times, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, since you can't assume either of those two facts, ma'am, that one cannot assume that just because two items are close to one another, although not touching, that the trace evidence on one will most likely be on the other?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there was trace evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in the event that--I'm sorry. One moment.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was taught that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were also taught to be careful with different items that are collected at a crime scene because they may have different types of hairs and fibers on them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily different hairs and fibers, but just hairs and fibers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught to assume that all items found at a crime scene are likely to have the same hairs and fibers because they are found at the same crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There is no telling what type of hairs and fibers are present.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there is no telling whether or not the same hairs and fibers on one object would be found on another object, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't make that assumption based on how far apart two items are to one another, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So, ma'am, would it--so wouldn't you agree that your earlier testimony in this case that you didn't have to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove here, because they were close to one another and therefore trace evidence on one would be on the other one, is not really consistent with what you were taught by the SID people?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say you don't know, do you mean you don't know what the supervisors at SID taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm saying I don't know if it would be inconsistent with.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if the objects had been fifteen feet apart, had you been taught by people at SID academy to change gloves before picking up the different objects?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Gloves would be changed.
MR. NEUFELD: You were taught that they should be changed under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if they are far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I said ten or fifteen apart under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not getting down to exact distances, but far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your own mind, based on your own experience, do you consider ten feet far apart?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So would you change the gloves under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: How about five feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Three feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you made the decision here that because the two items were within inches of one another that you didn't have to change the gloves; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "Inches."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The decision to change gloves was made--we did not change gloves.
MR. NEUFELD: Was the decision made by you or was the decision given to you by Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if I asked him about it or what. I'm not exactly sure what conversation we had at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean it may very well be that you asked Dennis Fung whether you should change your gloves for this situation and he said no?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the first time that the blood vial of Mr. Simpson is recorded in your notes is the next morning, June 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime the next day.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know if it was the morning or the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure which one it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any independent recollection as to when it was?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that it was not--that the blood vial was not recorded by you until after you were told about the sneakers that Detective Lange had dropped off at the SID laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And thus, it was at that point in time that you made the notations in the field notes identifying the tennis sneakers as item 17; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were recorded in the notes, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's at that point in time after you were told about the sneakers that you were then told about Mr. Simpson's blood vial; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that you then recorded--after you recorded the sneakers as item 17, that you then recorded the blood vial of Mr. Simpson as item 18?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason that you recorded it in that sequence at that time is, at that point in time, it was your understanding, was it not, that item 17 had been collected prior to item 18?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The tennis shoes were brought to my attention first. So I recorded it first.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, didn't you also say a little while ago that it was your practice whenever possible to record items as they are collected sequentially?
MS. MAZZOLA: As much as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so when you received these items, the reason you recorded no. 17 as the sneakers and no. 18 as the blood vial is because at that point in time, it was your state of mind that no. 18 was received by SID after the sneakers?
MS. MAZZOLA: The sneakers were brought to my attention. I wrote them in the field notes. Later the blood vial was brought to my attention.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I think you said earlier or we agreed earlier, I don't recall which, that there were more than 50 items collected on the 13th and 14th by you and/or Dennis Fung; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we agreed on that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that the only items of evidence where you were instructed to change the numbers were for the sneakers and the blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, on August 23rd, 1994, you testified at a hearing in this case, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime in August, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you swore to tell the truth at that hearing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?
THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
#325. To: nolu chan (#321)
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.
#326. To: misterwhite (#325)
They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:
MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
not to collect multiple items with one swab. MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, I don't know whether you can see this. I would like to draw your attention to one of the call-out lines that does not have a number on it, it is just a red dot, but it hooks up to a photograph that has an item no. 33 and depicts the brake pedals in the Bronco. Do you recognize that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were at the location did you do any testing on the brake pedals and the gas pedal as depicted in that photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did a phenolphthalein test.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do that personally or did Mr. Fung do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did that personally.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what is involved in a phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is simply taking a cotton swab, cotton-tipped swab, dampening it with a little distilled water, shaking out the excess, applying the swab to the area, adding a drop of the reagent. If there is no color change, we add a drop of hydrogen peroxide. If it is negative, nothing happens. If it is positive, it turns like a magenta hot pink.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you do that phenolphthalein test for each one of the three pedals that are depicted in the photograph that has the call-out line with no number on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the result?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, could you try to keep your voice up.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, neither you nor Mr. Fung that day collected any swatches from any of those three items, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, we did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And it is not because you were only looking for representative stains, because there were no other stains on any of those three items, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if there were any stains present.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't see any stains, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, repeating his Honor's question to you and I'm going to get it wrong--perhaps you could repeat your own question. Did Mr. Fung direct your attention to any stains at all on either of these three items?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No. THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, with regards to Miss Mazzola's testimony concerning the testing of the wire using the phenolphtalein presumptive test, I'm going to direct you to disregard her testimony that she got a positive result from that test. The reason for that is, phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result. So since there is no confirmatory test on this particular wire, you are to disregard the fact that there was a positive phenolphtalein test on the wire. All right. Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.
#327. To: nolu chan (#326)
"And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test."
#328. To: misterwhite (#327)
Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice.
The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.
THE COURT: ... phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result.
And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.
So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case.
Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case.
And wasting my time.
#329. To: misterwhite (#327)
Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?
#330. To: nolu chan (#329)
#331. To: A K A Stone (#330)
I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?
THE COURT: All right. How about the discovery matter?
MR. DARDEN: We just received a letter a few moments ago on the discovery matter and we have one copy and we're trying to read it, read over it right now.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll hear from Mr. Scheck on the discovery issue and let's see how far we get.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. As you know, yesterday, we had a status conference on discovery, and you were I know occupied writing your decision, and as a consequence, were unable to join us and asked us to put some of the results of that conference in a letter. We have a number of issues that we believe the court must take up. The first--many of them dealing with the rebuttal case and discovery of the Prosecution's rebuttal case. But before I get to that, we would like to call to the court's attention an extremely significant point. As the court probably recalls, the Defense has been requesting for several months in this case, really from the beginning, contact sheets of the crime scene photographs. We have never had a photo log in this case and we never had contact sheets indicating the order in which pictures were taken. Yesterday, we saw for the first time big beautiful color contact sheets of crime scene photographs. We saw those because Mr. Bodziak of the FBI had requested negatives and prepared contact sheets apparently in anticipation of assisting the Prosecution in the cross-examination of Dr. Lee and calling Mr. Bodziak as a rebuttal witness in this case. Examination of those contact sheets reveal that the picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove at Bundy appears to have been taken at night because the pictures to our eyes at this point prior to and subsequent to the Fuhrman picture, pointing at the glove, revealed that to be taken at night. Now, this has very serious implications. The Prosecution turned over a long time ago a statement of a photographer named Rolf Rokahr who initially told investigators, Detective Luper, that he had arrived at the Bundy scene sometime after midnight, had waited for the arrival of Detective Phillips and Fuhrman. When they arrived, he was then directed by them to go take individual pictures of evidence. Prior to their arrival, he had taken some overall shots. He then indicated in his statement-
THE COURT: Did he-- I thought Mr. Rokahr testified. I know we've heard his name and seen his likeness on some of the-
MR. SCHECK: I understand that. But my point is-
THE COURT: No. I'm just asking you if you have some-
MR. SCHECK: I don't recall him testifying at the trial-
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: --but his name did come up in the suppression hearings, and in fact, there was an indication by the Prosecution--they filed I think in a responsive brief to Mr. Uelmen's papers--that his initial statement as to the chain of events on the morning of June 13th was mistaken as to times and perhaps as to sequence, and they submitted an amended version of his testimony. The point is, is that he had given us this statement a long time ago indicating that the pictures of Fuhrman pointing to the glove would be consistent with having been taken at night. The crime scene log at Bundy indicates his arrival at 3:25. His initial statement says later. But even if he had arrived at 3:25 and took pictures at that time, that's still night. The sworn testimony of Detective Fuhrman in this case-
THE COURT: Darkness hours, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: --is that that picture was taken after 7 o'clock in the morning. That is also essentially the testimony of Detective Phillips. It is consistent with the testimony of Detective Lange and Vannatter, indicating that they directed Fuhrman to go back and do this comparison of gloves and take a photograph.
THE COURT: All right. So you feel at this point that you need to have this contact.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. We need to have that contact print because we think that that opens up a whole avenue that impeaches not only Detective Fuhrman's testimony, but it impeaches the other detectives as to their movements between crime scenes that evening. There are no notes about exactly how they proceeded and there are other contradictions, substantial contradictions.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, does the contact sheet that you saw yesterday include frame numbers?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, it did. What we arranged with Mr. Hodgman at the end of the day--Mr. Hodgman--and I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but he indicated to us at that conference, and I'm sure he'll confirm today, that he personally recalls Mr. Neufeld asking him several months ago for these contact sheets, had determined they didn't exist. And I know that we asked for them previously.
THE COURT: I recollect our discussion about the lack of a photo log.
MR. SCHECK: And these contact sheets. Right now, it's my understanding that we have made arrangements, and at this moment, Mr. Neufeld is at a laboratory with the representative of the District Attorney's office attempting to have high quality reproductions made of these contact sheets. Also, I should add-
THE COURT: Well, let me ask the more important question. Where are the original negatives?
MR. SCHECK: I believe that-
MR. HODGMAN: Well, they're at the photo lab now.
MR. SCHECK: They're at the photo lab.
MR. HODGMAN: They're being handled right now, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: So we are very, very concerned about that. In addition, as the court noted when Dr. Lee testified-
THE COURT: Well, let me ask another question, see if we can just cut to the chase at this point. When will they be available to the Defense, Mr. Hodgman?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, your Honor, they're being made available to the court or--excuse me--to the Defense right now. We made arrangements with the Defense yesterday. We obtained the negatives. We have an investigator. We agreed to a non-machine reproduction or development of these photos. We have an investigator there just to make sure we don't lose our negatives. But it's being taken care of right now. These contact sheets, which simply show an order--photos which the Defense has had for months and months, were recently acquired by us. I don't know precisely when. I would estimate, but I'll have to let Mr. Goldberg address this.
THE COURT: All right. So don't we need to see these contact sheets, have Mr. Scheck evaluate them and then take the matter up at that point to see what the significance is?
MR. HODGMAN: I think that would be appropriate, your Honor. But the point is, your Honor, discovery is being made. We made the arrangements yesterday. And I'm sure Mr. Scheck has more he'd like to address the court about. So we'll handle it item by item.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: But the major point here is that we've been asking these for a long time and they told us they didn't exist and they couldn't be made. And now, just because Mr. Bodziak had them made in an effort to confront Dr. Lee's testimony, all of a sudden, we find something that we think is extremely significant on a crucial matter.
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Scheck, why don't we do this. Let's assume that you get your copies of the contact sheets sometime later today. You'll have time to evaluate them.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: And if you can--after evaluating them, there is some significance to you and to the Defense position, then we'll take that up at that time.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, I should note in the Brady motion that we filed with the court today, we indicate the lines we are pursuing here because we think it has significance with respect to the decision you rendered. I should note also with respect to the--these photographs that the enlargements in the treated photographs that we saw yesterday--and we're endeavoring to have these copies made as well-we think provide, just from my untrained eye, looking at them--and that doesn't substitute, as the court has acknowledged, for Dr. Lee's trained eye, Dr. Lee's magical eye frankly. But looking at those photographs, I think that there may be some additional parallel line imprints in the walkway area that are consistent with our contention that we have footprints of two individuals involved in this homicide.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: And we think that those pictures are potentially quite exculpatory as well and we should have seen them earlier. The next issue with respect to discovery is that Miss Clark had indicated that we were going to see all these photographs. And of course, they were slow in coming, but you had ordered forthwith it was our understanding.
THE COURT: Which photographs are we speaking about since we've done this several times?
MR. SCHECK: Let's start with the gloves. We thought that you had ordered forthwith for production yesterday or-
THE COURT: Day before.
MR. SCHECK: --whatever forthwith means, the--what they had with respect to videotapes or blow-ups on the gloves and whatever they propose to introduce in their rebuttal case.
THE COURT: I recollect--
MR. SCHECK: And we're not by any means conceding they have a right to do that. We haven't gotten that.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, as I indicated to the court I believe it was Wednesday, there was an event concerning these photographs yesterday and basically we were having them reviewed by someone. We've had the benefit of that event having occurred. Accordingly, I've instructed our staff to prepare for submission either to the Defense or to the court under 1054.7, just to be overly cautious about it, the photos and videos that we would either potentially or actually seek to introduce in our rebuttal case. I was informed earlier this morning that we should have the package complete by noon. I should advise the court that-
THE COURT: They're to be turned over by noon?
MR. HODGMAN: Yes. And by being turned over, the bulk of it we'll give to the Defense. There will be perhaps one or two submissions to the court where we're still not quite sure. So--but out of an abundance of caution, we will turn it over to the court under 1054.7.
THE COURT: All right. Then what I'm going to do is direct that that package be made available to the Defense by noon today, that anything that you feel is not within the discovery statute, submit to the court by noon today for the court's review.
#332. To: A K A Stone (#330)
Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.
Q From that vantage point, looking down on the victims, were you able to see any items of evidence?
Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]