[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 117971
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-320) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#321. To: misterwhite (#319)

"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:01:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#322. To: all (#319)

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: 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do you have any recollection of why that was erased and the other--and "Received from Vannatter" put in there?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: all (#319)

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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. 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. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Also vague as to "Critical evidence."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know what their policy is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: 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?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never heard of any?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have never heard of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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. 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. 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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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. 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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't do any processing of samples on the 14th?
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.

(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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola on June 28th were you out sick?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: However, a positive result, when that little swab turns that-- I think you say magenta?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
MS. MAZZOLA: It came up, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And-­
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)


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.

(Briefpause.)


MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: Defense-­
THE CLERK: 1113.
THE COURT: --1113.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Deft's 1113 for id = photograph)


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.

(Briefpause.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the smear or grayish or-- I am sorry--discoloration indicated in the third circle, did you?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And so as to the items in the driveway, the detectives told you which items to collect?
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.

(Briefpause.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

(Briefpause.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now I'm going to question about the board.
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did--there's only one photograph here that has an arrow and a northerly direction on it; isn't that right?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you personally do the phenolphtalein test on the speck next to the driver's handle?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which—I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you were relying exclusively on your memory, on your independent recollection when you testified on August 23rd, correct?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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-­
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check on that.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected item 47, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. 47 was-­
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct, ma'am, you personally collected item 47?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

(Briefpause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: So you did not know on June 13th which direction these drops were going in, did you?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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. 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?
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.

(Briefpause.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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. 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. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD that just like moisture, heat also can promote bacterial growth?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

(Briefpause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#324. To: all (#319)


Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 26 April 1995; EXCERPTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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: You said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(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?
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.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop, stop.
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.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop.
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.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD:

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at volume--
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.

[...]

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?
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.

(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?
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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?
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.

(Brief pause.)


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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:05:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: nolu chan (#321)

Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.

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:

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-11   9:43:36 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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:

You stubbornly do not get it.

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.

not to collect multiple items with one swab.

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.

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.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: The phenolphthalein tests were positive.

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

During Mazzola's testimony on the 26th, similar crap elicited this from Judge Ito:

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   16:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-11   17:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#328. To: misterwhite (#327)

Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which part do you deliberately not understand?

And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.

As they never even collected a swatch, it was impossible to do a confirmatory test.

So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case.

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.

Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case.

I am documenting the monumental failure of the criminalists to follow mandatory collection procedures. It screwed the entire case.

And wasting my time.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   18:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#329. To: misterwhite (#327)

FUHRMAN FALSE TESTIMONY

Det Mark FUHRMAN questioned by Marcia CLARK:

4045 - 4046 March 10, 1995

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   19:57:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: nolu chan (#329)

I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-19   21:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   22:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#332. To: A K A Stone (#330)

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:

Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

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.

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.

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

Q From that vantage point, looking down on the victims, were you able to see any items of evidence?

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

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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   22:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#333. To: nolu chan (#329)

That was all lies, under oath.

Where's the lie?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   10:48:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir?
MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:14:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#335. To: nolu chan (#220) (Edited)

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#336. To: misterwhite (#333)

That was all lies, under oath.

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.

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.

There is also Fuhrman's lie that he did not get closer to the glove than the landing at Bundy before going to Rockingham.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:30:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#337. To: misterwhite (#334)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.

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.

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.

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

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.

(Brief pause.)

MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36.
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.

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.

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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#338. To: misterwhite (#335)

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.

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.

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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:37:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#339. To: A K A stone, misterwhite (#332)

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?

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: (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?
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.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING?
MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.
THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?
MR. SCHECK: 1082.

(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?
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.

(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.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.

(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?
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.

(DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD?
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.

(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?
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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#340. To: nolu chan (#339)

Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.

OK is guilty and should have been executed.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-21   9:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#341. To: A K A Stone (#340)

Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   7:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#342. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#340)

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.

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.

June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung

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?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   8:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#343. To: nolu chan (#342)

Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.

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".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:38:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#344. To: nolu chan (#342)

The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous.

Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#345. To: nolu chan (#338)

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#346. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)

Who's protocol?

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.

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".

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

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?

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. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?

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. 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?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:27:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#347. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#344)

Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.

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.

"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."

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#349. To: nolu chan (#348)

Convicted perjurer?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   17:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#350. To: A K A Stone (#349) (Edited)

Convicted perjurer?

Yes, convicted perjurer. A convicted felon.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-03/news/9610030184_1_detective-mark-fuhrman-mr-fuhrman-simpson-civil-trial

Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#351. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)

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".

See the cluster foxtrot created by Dennis Fung with the Bronco.

Fung, 11 April 1995

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.

(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?
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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#352. To: nolu chan (#351) (Edited)

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:08:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#353. To: A K A Stone (#349)

Convicted perjurer?

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:16:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#354. To: nolu chan (#347) (Edited)

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie?

No? Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur? Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA?

The threshold is "reasonable doubt", not "doubt caused by wild speculation and innuendo".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#355. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#353)

If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   19:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#356. To: nolu chan (#350)

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.

And???

The felony complaint was dropped and his record expunged. Like it never happened. Except for you where it will never go away.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#357. To: A K A Stone (#355)

"If it is because he said nigger. Who cares."

The defense (and nolu chan) since his use of the word automatically means he's a racist and that he planted evidence.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#358. To: misterwhite (#352)

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.

You are absolutely, willfully and deliberately, full of shit. Your bullshit attempt is pathetic.

It was one question, highlighted below in blue font. The question was rephrased and the answer came into evidence. Your bullshit had zero effect on any other part of the exchange, repeated in full below for your reading pleasure, with your bullshit diversion highlighted in blue.

The subject was the protocol required by the LAPD. The exchange clearly addresses that issue and dismisses the Fung absurd nonsense which you tried to defend.

Your diversionary make-believe response accomplished nothing other than to reveal your shallowness.

Fung, 11 April 1995

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.

(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?
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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#359. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#353)

Convicted perjurer?

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.

What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY.

The tapes were conclusive to all but the willfully ignorant.

Closing statement of Marcia CLARK:

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 worst 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.

Considering the closing argument of Marcia Clark, for the prosecution, one might just begin to suspect that Det. Mark Fuhrman had been discredited.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#360. To: misterwhite (#354)

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie?

Try again. The sample vial was supposedly placed in a TRASH BAG, not a little plastic baggie.

Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur?

You keep wanting to reverse the burden of proof. It is the prosecution's burden of proof to show a continuous chain of custody, and to demonstrate that established procedures were followed to prevent cross-contamination.

Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA?

There was no plastic baggie involved; there was no coin envelope involved. There was a large black trash bag. Such is how it goes when misterwhite attempts to bullshit like the LAPD witnesses.

Nobody speculated on your imaginary bullshit. According to the official story, once upon a time, Phil Vannatter carried a sample vial of OJ's blood out to the crime scene and gave it to criminalist Dennis Fung, with no record of the transfer, and with criminalist Mazzola unaware. As it came to pass, after Fung and Mazzola had locked their kits, including their normal packing material, in the truck, they returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag. On the field notes where it says "Packaged in," criminalist Mazzola left the space blank. The tale continues that it was around this time that Vannatter gave the vial of blood to Fung. And lo and behold, Fung put the glass vial of OJ's blood into the garbage bag without informing Mazzola of its existence. And Mazzola carried the garbage bag, with evidence and OJ's reference blood sample, to the truck, and proceeded to the lab where everything was left out overnight, including the reference blood sample. The trash bag was deposited on a counter and left there overnight until the morning of the 14th. The sample blood vial and other evidence was not booked into evidence until the 16th.

It is only the impeccable reputation of the LAPD, and the unquestioned veracity of the LAPD, that relieves one from questioning the chain of custody, and whether Det. Vanatter kept that blood vial in his possession overnight, as he did with the Reebok sneakers. Had he done so, one could have at least hoped that he refrigerated it.

The next day, Lange brought in the sneakers which he had kept overnight and Mazzola recorded the sneakers as Item #17. She found out about the blood vial after she had recorded the Reebok sneakers, and recorded the blood vial as Item #18. Subsequently, the sneakers were reassigned to Item #18, and the blood vial was assigned Item #17 at the direction of Dennis Fung. Thus, the blood vial became Item #17 from the black trash bag.

Mazzola's field notes say Item #16 was collected at 5:00 p.m. That was 11 minutes before the criminalist gear was locked up in the van. She knows that time must have been incorrect because she has an independent memory of packing Items #15 and #16 in the large black trash bag because their kits were locked in the van.

If the log were correct, then the items would have been packaged normally and not in a trash bag. If the trash bag contained trash, and it was the only bag carried out after the van was locked at 5:11, who was carrying the blood on their person? There must have been a trash bag used for evidence... no other container came out to the van which might have contained the blood vial.

The glass vial certainly did not get carried to the truck in the criminalists' kits. Video showed those had already been locked up in the van before Vannatter allegedly passed the vial to Fung, who allegedly added it to the trash bag without telling Mazzola, and without logging it in, or having Mazzola log it in.

A curious soul might ask, if the only trash bag carried out contained a reference sample of blood and evidence, what did they do with the trash?

THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers back on August 23rd at a hearing in this case? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up the last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." On August 23rd, you were asked that question and you gave that answer, didn't you?
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.

(Brief pause.)

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.

Perish the thought that Mazzola might have joined Team Blue Wall.

The new and improved story was:

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now--now, as to the question that you were asked at the Griffen hearing about your recollection, that as soon as you picked up that item, that you and Mr. Fung left the premises, when you say you think it was a little bit after that, what was that recollection based on?
MS. MAZZOLA: Which item are you--
MR. GOLDBERG: You were asked whether you left after you collected 15 and 16, and you said it was a little bit after that.
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that recollection based on?
MS. MAZZOLA: The fact that Mr. Fung spent some time talking to the detectives. So it would have been after that.
MR. GOLDBERG: What were you doing in that interval between the time that you got back to the location after locking everything in your crime scene truck and when you came out with the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: For a short time, I was with Mr. Fung and the detectives and the photographer. After a while, the photographer and I went into the living room and sat down.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was your mental state at that time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Exhaustion.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have a clear sense of how much time was going by when you were sitting down on the couch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you testified that you believed--when you were asked whether you were with Mr. Fung the entire time between 1700 hours until you departed and you said that you believed that you were, what was the basis of that belief?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was--felt like a few minutes. Didn't feel like a long time at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, were any other items logged in on the 13th after 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: As to having been received on the 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, on the 13th, did you or Mr. Fung in your presence make any paperwork on the crime scene identification checklist, logging in any item after 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I will get into that in just a second, but I wanted to ask a few clarifying questions. When you were sitting on the couch at the Rockingham location, before you left, I guess this would have been after 5:11?
MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were your eyes opened or closed?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe they were closed.
MR. GOLDBERG: At what point did you close your eyes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Probably the second I sat down.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you--did you fall asleep?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I wasn't asleep.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you lose track of time when you were sitting on the couch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

And so it came to pass that Andrea Mazzola, although with Dennis Fung, had sat down on the couch, closed her eyes but did not sleep, lost track of time, and had no idea that Vannatter had given a vial of blood to Dennis Fung while her eyes were closed but she was not sleeping. And she had no idea that Dennis Fung had put the blood vial in the black trash bag, and she left the blood unrefrigerated in violation of LAPD directives but did not know it.

And they all lived happily after.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#361. To: A K A Stone (#355)

If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.

The LAPD witnesses engaged in serial perjury and were exposed. Who cares? The jury cared.

When the LAPD witnesses were exposed time and again covering for each other and trying to bullshit the jury, they lost all credibility.

Question by Jay Monahan, attorney and legal consultant for Fox Television.

What did you think when Detective Vannatter testified that Mark Fuhrman told him that Kato had talked about thumps on the wall, after hearing Fuhrman testify he never told Vannatter that Kato had told him?

[Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley] "My feeling was, I sort of felt like I said earlier, that Fuhrman was a liar and I had problems with him. ... So I had sort of discredited him and probably Vannatter from the beginning."

[Juror Carrie Bess] “Number one, that was confusing testimony that was torn apart by both the prosecutors and the defense. Vannatter stating that Fuhrman told him what he was doing, that when he was talking with Kato, Fuhrman came around and told him that he was gonna go and check out things. Then he comes back and says that Vannatter didn’t know anything about what he was doing. Vannatter has been found to prevaricate in two incidents in this case, so I'm really not surprised to find that. You have to really discredit these two police officers.”

[Juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson] “But what brought my attention to those two was when they said they had come through that back door off the pool into the house. Then Arnelle Simpson got on the stand and said that she had to go around to undo the alarm system and they entered through the front door. They both had said they had come through the back gate, off the pool doors. So their whole testimony didn’t really hold any weight with me after I got into the deliberation room. I figured those two were trying to cover for each other. I don’t know if they were in any type of conspiracy, you know, but conspiring to cover for each other, yes.”

[Juror Carrie Bess] Well, it was obvious to me already what I had to do. When we got the chance to listen to those tapes, the judge told us, 'You have the right to discredit all or any parts of his testimony.'"

When a witness gets caught blatantly lying to the jury, they may discredit all of his testimony. It was established that Mark Fuhrman was a liar, and would and did lie under oath. The witness loses all presumption of truthfulness. Mark Fuhrman was removed from the case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514002/Mark-Fuhrman-s-racist-tapes-transcript-key-witness-OJ-Simpson-case-saying-N-word-41-TIMES-detailing-incidents-racially-motivated-violence-involving-members-LAPD.html

Fuhrman spoke into McKinny's tape recorder after the murders, "I'm the key witness in the biggest case of the century. And, if I go down, they lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove - bye, bye."

And he said of his partner, Brad Roberts, "

At one point he also makes disparaging comments about the looks and work ethic of a female superior, Captain Margaret York, implying she advanced in the ranks through sexual favors.

Witnesses who were members of the police force were listed on a spousal conflict form and Captain York was required to review the list and sign off on the fact that she did not have a relationship with any members of the LAPD who would appear at trial.

Questions then arose how she could not remember Fuhrman given the fact that he spoke so angrily about her on the tapes.

The prosecution called for Judge Ito to recuse himself believing he could not be fair given this new development, while the defense argued against that.

6 Sep 1995

MR. COCHRAN: ... May I read something to the court my counsel just shared with me, your Honor? This has to do with--let me just read this and I think it puts it in perspective about lying and covering up. This is describing--there was our no. 10 describing the necessity of police officers to be willing to lie. "Well, I really love being a policeman when I can be a policeman. It is like my partner now. He is so hung up with the rules and stuff"--

THE COURT: "He has more morals than he has got hair."

MR. COCHRAN: Remember that? "You just don't fucking even understand. The job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We will make them up later. He's a college graduate, as you know, a catholic college," et cetera. "He was going to be a priest," et cetera, "And he has got more morals than he has got hair. "What do you mean he has got more morals?" "He doesn't know how to be a policeman, especially can't lie. Oh, you make me fucking sick to my guts. You know, you do what you have to do to put these fucking assholes in jail. If you don't, you fuckin' get out the fuckin' game. He just wants to be one of the boys. He doesn't want to play--pay the dues, so how does he deal with it? He doesn't lie. Well, I know for a fact in this Internal Affairs investigation he has a 10-day suspension, he will roll." He goes on to say: "He will drop a dime on me. He will squeal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

Fuhrman asserts that the police and the prosecution made other errors that reduced the chances of a guilty verdict. For example, Fuhrman and his partner, Brad Roberts, found a bloody fingerprint on the north walkway gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's house. According to Fuhrman, at least some of it belonged to the suspect, as there was enough blood at the scene to suggest the suspect was bleeding. This was potentially critical evidence; Simpson claimed that he'd cut himself on the night of the murders but hadn't been to his ex-wife's house in a week. Had the fingerprint been tied to Simpson in any fashion it would have been a crippling, and possibly fatal, blow to his defense. It also could have contradicted the defense's allegations that Fuhrman planted the glove, since Fuhrman did not know or have reason to know that it was Simpson's blood.[42] However, the fingerprint was destroyed at some point and was only mentioned superficially at trial. In fact, Fuhrman later discovered that Vannatter and Vannatter's partner, Tom Lange, didn't even know the fingerprint was there because they never read Fuhrman's notes. Roberts could have offered testimony to corroborate that the fingerprint was there but was never called to testify– something that rankled Fuhrman almost as much as the fact that Vannatter and Lange never read his notes. Fuhrman also claimed that Roberts could have corroborated many of his other observations, but Marcia Clark didn't call him (to avoid embarrassing Vannatter on the stand).[42]

Not only was Brad Roberts (Fuhrman's partner) never called as a witness, he was never interviewed regarding the case. Perhaps Fuhrman was right and Roberts would not lie. That presented a special problem with regard to Det. Vannatter. A la Dennis Fung claiming credit for work done by Andrea Mazzola, Det. Vannatter testified to his own discovery of evidence that had been discovered by Brad Roberts. When Marcia Clark arrived on scene, it was Brad Roberts who gave her the guided tour. If put on the stand, Brad Roberts would have perjured himself, or testified to the perjury of Det. Vannatter.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:18:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (362 - 422) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com