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: 119122
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 (1-312) not displayed.
.
.
.
#313. To: misterwhite (#308)
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.
Where's the lie?
MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that.
Testimony Of LAPD Officer Robert Riske A: HE'S POINTING TO THE GLOVE. Q: THE GLOVE AND THE CAP? A: THE CAP. Q: THE ONES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO -- LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. WHAT'S HE WEARING THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: LOOKS LIKE WHITE SUIT SHIRT, PAIR OF SLACKS. Q: NO JACKET? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE LEAVES OF THE PLANT THAT KIND OF HUNG OVER THAT ONE GLOVE AND THE SKI CAP? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THAT ACTUALLY YOU HAD TO LEFT IT UP TO SEE? A: RIGHT. Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, THE LEAVES ARE NOT LIFTED UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING THE LEAVES BACK AND HIS RIGHT HAND POINTING TO THE -- MS. CLARK: PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT, JONATHAN. THE WITNESS: OH, NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM? Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM. SO HE'S JUST POINTING TO IT WITH HIS RIGHT HAND? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE? A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT.
Where's the lie? The contact sheets proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the glove photo was taken at night, before 5:41, contrary to Fuhrman and those who would cover for Fuhrman. LAPD lies. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru #33 were shot at night, as were #36-#43, the first eight shots of the second roll. There is also Fuhrman's lie that he did not get closer to the glove than the landing at Bundy before going to Rockingham.
Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that. I do not guess. What you guess is impossible. If the photog reset the databack number, he would have duplicate numbers on the shoot, and everybody would know it. The photog does not reset the number for the databack for the duration of the shoot. Your guess is directly proven impossible by the contact sheets. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. A roll of film allows adequate length to obtain 36 exposures, 37 if you are lucky. 35 if you want to be absolutely certain the first exposure is good. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. You should get 35 - 37. Good try at impressing me with your photographic credentials. I won an honorable mention at the PFLI (Photographic Federation of Long Island) myself. That was not restricted to amateurs, and included, for example, Newsday photographers. Entrants develop and print their own photos. That outranks a local win I had. It looks as if you have never developed a roll of film, or printed a contact sheet, in your life, and it seems you have never heard of a databack. A hideously stupid comment. When you get 43 from a roll of 36, tell the Guinness book of records. You do not get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. As the photographer testified, sometimes you get 37. Try developing a few rolls and find out what you are talking about. And you might advance a little more if you are a crime scene photographer or wish to make sure your first picture is a picture and not a black space. As noted at my #235, I significantly posted testimony of the photographer, Rolf Rokahr, at my #220. The crime scene photographer uses a camera with a data back with a counter for the photo shoot where his first photo will be 000001 and the others will be numbered sequentially. The very first shot on the very first roll, photo 000001 would be a picture of his slate for the photo shoot. That's rather like the thing someone is holding when a movie director says "action!" I contains the identifying information for the photo shoot. The first roll cannot be mistaken for any other. The 34th and 35th exposures on the first roll were the pictures of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the glove in a nighttime photo with flash. Shots 1-33 were shot in the dark. Shots 34 and 35 ended the first roll and were shot in the dark. Shots 36-43 were the first shots on the second roll. They were also shot at nighttime. The contact sheets prove, beyond all doubt, that shots 34 and 35 were shot at night, and not at 7 to 7:15 a.m., nearly an hour and a half after daybreak. Photographer Rolf Rokahr, 5 Sep 1995 (Brief pause.) MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36. The first roll did not contain the absurdly ridiculous misterwhite claim of 43 shots; it contained 35 shots, as testified to by the photographer, and verified by the contact sheets. Shot 36 was the first apppearing on the second roll, corresponding to shot 36 on the camera databack. The camera databack number appeared on each sequential picture. Again, this is verified by the contact sheets. A photographic print does not usually include the the exposure number printed on the film by Kodak. It includes the databack number assigned by the user. A contact sheet includes everything, including the sprocket holes and the number assigned by Kodak. 1-33 and 34 and 35 on the first roll were taken at nighttime, as were the first eight exposures 36-43 on roll two. Fuhrman and Riske testified falsely.
You accidentally on purpose left out the date again. That was testimony on direct examination by Marcia Clark on 9 Feb 1995. Riske also testified on 14 Feb 1995. Photographer Rokahr testified on 5 Sep 1995. Next day, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT. The LAPD lied. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru 33 were shot at night, as were 36-43, the first eight shots of the second roll. Riske's response is sufficiently vague that he has left an escape. The contact sheets prove the photograph was taken at night. As a matter of record, daybreak was at 5:41 a.m. Officer Riske's testimony, while acting to cover for Det. Fuhrman in April, cannot actually change night into day, or change the time of daybreak on 13 June 1995. The only inference to be drawn is that Officer Riske's testimony was false or mistaken. Riske under cross examination on 14 Apr 1995. [...]
Continuing along with the destruction of the LAPD criminalists, OJ - FUNG FICTION AND VIDEO Mr. Fung having a terrible, no good day, April 11, 1995. How about that, Mr. Fung? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING? (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL. (A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL. (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS. MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG? THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK? MR. SCHECK: YES. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND? A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME? (DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD? (THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.) (BRIEF PAUSE.) [...] THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15- MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU. (RECESS.) [...] Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT? A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083. (DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE) (AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU? Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT? A: APPEARS TO BE, YES. Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT? A: YES. Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE? A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU? A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN. (AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Mr. Fung] WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. Followed by Barry Scheck showing Dennis Fung a video depicting evidence being picked up while a coroner is in the background of the picture. BUSTED.
Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture. OK is guilty and should have been executed.
And maybe the LAPD witnesses lied and lied and lied and got caught time after time after time after time. The question under discussion is not whether O.J. did it, but whether the prosecutors sufficient credible evidence to the jury to enable them to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed miserably.
Moving on, Evidence collected on the 13th was not booked until the 16th. Fung says that was "very quick." Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain. Protocol was to collect the entire stain. To relieve reader befuddlement on why Fung might give contrary testimony, recall that after the 14 June 1995 stain collection, there were several subsequent visits to the Bronco and the collection of more blood from the original area. If he had swatched the entire blood smear the first time, there should have been no blood there for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th collection. Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley, Madam Foreman 1995, pg. 111. June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung MR. FUNG: As long as I'm following the intention of the policy, that's what the manual's for. MR. SCHECK: And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th? MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick. MR. SCHECK: You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and booked until June 16th? MR. FUNG: That is correct.
Protocol was to collect the entire stain. Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".
Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.
He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.
Must be some transvestite you met in a bar. Or did you mean whose? In that case, it is the protocol of the LAPD, the California DoJ, and pretty much everybody concerned with the stuff. Just because Fung cut corners and violated all the rules in the book does not make it official policy. Policy for Fung was what he felt like doing at a particular time. Fung, 3 April 1995, 5803 A: I WOULD SELECT ANOTHER SWATCH, WET IT, APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND PUT IT IN THE SAME PLASTIC BAG AS THE FIRST CLOTH SWATCH FOR THAT ITEM. Q: AND ON SOME OF THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN FACT MOST OF THE STAINS, WERE THERE MORE THAN ONE SWATCH THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAIN ITSELF? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL, BUT THE STAIN. A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO ALL THOSE GO INTO THE SAME PLASTIC BAGGIE TOGETHER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THAT BAGGIE OR THAT PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE VARIOUS STAIN SWATCHES AND THE OTHER PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE CLOTH CONTROL GO WHERE? A: THOSE TWO BAGS GO INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WITH THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN. Matheson, 3 May 1995 MR. MATHESON: As much as possible, yes. MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: So you try to get as much as you can, correct? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: And your people understand that? MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes. Ragle, 21 August 1995 MR. RAGLE: You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken.
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible. It makes an anonymous blood sample. Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so. Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood." Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to." "There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other." The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing. The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human.
Oh, his testimony matches that of the convicted perjurer, Mark Fuhrman. Big whoop. The picture was taken at night, in the dark. It is proven beyond a doubt by the contact sheets. Unlike LAPD Detective Fuhrman, the photographs were not indicted and convicted for perjury.
Convicted perjurer?
Yes, convicted perjurer. A convicted felon. Facing Perjury Charge, He Gets 3-year Probation October 03, 1996 By V. Dion Haynes, Tribune Staff Writer. Tribune news services contributed to this report. He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine.
Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department". See the cluster foxtrot created by Dennis Fung with the Bronco. Fung, 11 April 1995 (DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.
Not for his testimony about the glove. Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before. So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't.
Comments (354 - 422) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#333. To: nolu chan (#329)
That was all lies, under oath.
#334. To: nolu chan (#220)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?
MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.
#335. To: nolu chan (#220)
(Edited)
#336. To: misterwhite (#333)
That was all lies, under oath.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?
MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.
#337. To: misterwhite (#334)
Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet--except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first--by the way, how many exposures did you get out of that first roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There would be 36, 35, 36.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35?
MR. ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first--on its first advance advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. ROKAHR: So I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37.Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.
Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter.
MR. NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item no. 35--not item number, but photograph no. 35?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I think it's--let me just check with this one.
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NEUFELD: That's the next roll?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. Either the next roll or the last negative. I may have reloaded walking around to the front of the building.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?
MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes. MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?
MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?
MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?
MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.
MR. ROKAHR: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?
MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.
MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.
MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?
MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.
MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
#338. To: misterwhite (#335)
Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE?
Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHILE YOU WERE THERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER NEVER CAME INSIDE AND TOOK THINK PICTURES OF ANYTHING INSIDE THAT PLACE, RIGHT?
A: NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO.
Q: YOU NEVER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT?
A: NO.
Q: AND IN YOUR PRESENCE YOU NEVER HEARD EITHER PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN OR LANGE OR VANNATTER INSTRUCT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THE INTERIOR?
A: NO. Q: OKAY. WE TALKED LAST WEEK ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE DETECTIVES LEFT TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A: I REMEMBER SPEAKING OF IT.
Q: WHAT TIME DID THEY LEAVE?
A: I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
Q: YOU TOLD US THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR?
A: HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.
Q: YOU THOUGHT THEY GOT BACK ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A: BETWEEN 6:30, 6:45.
Q: 6:30, 6:45. SO THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT-- IF THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT ABOUT 5:00, WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
A: 5:15, 5:30. I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THE SUN CAME UP THAT MORNING IN JUNE?
A: NO, I DON'T.
Q: SO SOMEWHERE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THEY WERE GONE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: WHEN THEY LEFT, WHEN ALL FOUR DETECTIVES LEFT, THE THREE WHO WERE NOW IN CHANGE OF THAT SCENE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE AT THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: MY SUPERVISOR.
#339. To: A K A stone, misterwhite (#332)
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS?
A: YES.
Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG?
A: YES.
Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE?
A: YES.
Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE RING?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?
A: NOTE PAD MAYBE.
Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD?
A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES.
MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.
THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?
MR. SCHECK: 1082.
A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE.
Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE --
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE?
A: OKAY.
Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL?
A: RIGHT.
Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT?
A: YES.
Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.
A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE.
Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT?
A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.
Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE?
A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT.
Q: SEE IT NOW?
A: YES. COULD BE, YES.
Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?
A: YES.
Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?
A: YES.
#340. To: nolu chan (#339)
#341. To: A K A Stone (#340)
Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.
#342. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#340)
I felt that Dennis was too busy trying to be protective of his position. His rank is a Criminalist II, but somewhere along the line I think he missed something. I think that he did not do a professional job in collecting the evidence. The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Mazzola was young and new on the job. Mazzola was sitting there in the living room and nodded out for twenty minutes or so. If she didn't have anything to do for nearly a half hour, she could have taken the evidence to Parker Center or wherever, and had it booked or refrigerated while Dennis continued to collect or do whatever he had to do. I think what happened is a lot of people just got too caught up in the moment and didn't do their jobs properly. I just thought he was sloppy.
MR. SCHECK: Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I'm not aware of one."
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab?
MR. FUNG: I don't know of any document to that effect.
MR. SCHECK: And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain?
MR. FUNG: I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about.
MR. SCHECK: Stains on the console?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same.
MR. SCHECK: You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence?
MR. FUNG: If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but--
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them?
MR. FUNG: You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual.
MR. FUNG: I believe I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you cite a specific page of the transcript?
MR. SCHECK: Let's do it this way.
MR. SCHECK: Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to rules.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes.
MR. SCHECK: The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you?
THE COURT: Haven't we gone over this already?
MR. SCHECK: Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast.
THE COURT: Doesn't mean we have to do it again.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here.
MR. FUNG: The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence?
#343. To: nolu chan (#342)
Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.
#344. To: nolu chan (#342)
The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous.
#345. To: nolu chan (#338)
#346. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)
Who's protocol?
Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".
Q: MR. FUNG, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD STAINS AND SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. WHEN YOU COLLECT A STAIN, IF YOU APPLY A SWATCH TO THAT STAIN, AND IT DOES NOT COLLECT THE ENTIRE STAIN, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
MR. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain?
#347. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#344)
Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.
"I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders."
#348. To: misterwhite (#345)
He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.
#349. To: nolu chan (#348)
#350. To: A K A Stone (#349)
(Edited)
Convicted perjurer?
Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time
#351. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)
Protocol was to collect the entire stain.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.
Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?
A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.
Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.
Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?
A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.
Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?
A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?
MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --
THE COURT: 1088.
MR. SCHECK: 1088.
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.
Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.
Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?
A: YES.
Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.
Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?
A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.
Q: OF THE BRONCO?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?
A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?
A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.
Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.
Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?
A: I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?
A: MONTHS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
Q: YEAH.
A: YES, YES.
Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?
Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?
Q: YES.
A: YES.
Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?
A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.
Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.
Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?
A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.
Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?
A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.
Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?
Q: WITH CARE?
A: YES.
Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --
THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.
MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.
Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?
A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.
Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?
A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.
Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.
#352. To: nolu chan (#351)
(Edited)
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
#353. To: A K A Stone (#349)
Convicted perjurer?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]