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: 118598
Comments: 422
Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-323) not displayed.
.
.
.
#324. To: all (#319)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Now, ma'am, between the time that you picked up the hat and the glove at Bundy, you didn't change your gloves then, did you? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (At 9:31 A.M., Defense exhibit 1083, a videotape, was played.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--can you stop for one second. Miss Mazzola, are you a lefty? (The videotape resumes playing.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop, stop. (The videotape resumes playing.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: (Brief pause.) MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at volume-- [...] MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, at page 23790 were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question by MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you said on direct examination, when I was asking you about collecting the glove and the watch cap, the cap, that they were in close proximity or touching? "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: Which was it? "Answer: Reviewing photographs, they were invery close proximity to each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers? (Brief pause.) MR. NEUFELD: When you pick up the hat, you have to be careful because there may be trace evidence on it? That is something that you were taught at the SID mini academy; isn't that right? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Was it--had you been taught by anyone at the SID mini academy that it was okay to store a vial of whole blood in a trash bag on a counter in an unrefrigerated capacity overnight? (Brief pause.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ah. I see my mistake. Swab surface "A", nothing. Swab surface "B", nothing. Swab surface "C", bingo. Sure you can. Looking for DNA on any of those items was a waste of time. DNA could have been picked up by anyone's shoes, anywhere, and deposited. They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:
You stubbornly do not get it. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. It is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm the PRESENCE of blood with a pheno test. Your claim of "Bingo" goes contrary to the science. It is only possible to confirm the ABSENCE of blood with a pheno test. A positive pheno test result, without a confirmatory positive test result, is inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood. It will indicate positive when reacting to human blood, animal blood, and hundreds of other substances, e.g., beet juice. In the absence of a confirmatory test, the obtainment of a positive pheno result is a waste of time. What was the crap elicited by prosecutor Hank Goldberg on direct, and stated by Andrea Mazzola under oath, claiming the "tests" (plural), "were" (plural), positive? There was no mention of the idiotic one swab test on direct. On direct, Mazzola referred to the "tests were" plural, "positive." And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test. There was no confirmation of the presence of blood, and there was presence of misleading testimony by omission of the single swab being used, and referring to the "tests" plural. (Brief pause.) MS. MAZZOLA: The phenolphthalein tests were positive. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - During Mazzola's testimony on the 26th, similar crap elicited this from Judge Ito: - - - - - - - - - -
Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice. The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence. So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case. Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case. And wasting my time.
Or one of several hundred other substances which will yield a positive result on a pheno test. As I said and documented for the umpteenth time, a pheno test is incapable of proving the presence of blood. It is an exclusionary test which can show the absence of blood. You are responding another post where I quoted the testimonial evidence from a transcript. It was inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood, animal or human. The detectives opinion plus a pheno test fails to qualify as proof of the presence of blood, animal or human. Which part do you deliberately not understand? As they never even collected a swatch, it was impossible to do a confirmatory test. As they failed to do a confirmatory test, whatever they did with the one swab does mean something in the case. It means the direct testimony was misleading or false, and the criminalists were incompetent or worse. I am documenting the monumental failure of the criminalists to follow mandatory collection procedures. It screwed the entire case. You are wasting your time. You claimed the prosecution had 10x the amount of evidence necessary for the jury to return a verdict of guilty. We are now past post number 300 and you have produced no actual evidence from the criminal trial whatever. The prosecution in the criminal case failed to produce sufficient to justify a conviction. That is why there is such difficulty finding it.
FUHRMAN FALSE TESTIMONY Det Mark FUHRMAN questioned by Marcia CLARK: 4045 - 4046 March 10, 1995 A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING. Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY? A: YES, MA'AM. Q: SO AT THE POINT THAT YOU WROTE THE SKI MASK, HOW CLOSE HAD YOU GOTTEN TO THAT ITEM? A: NO CLOSER THAN THE LANDING WHERE I OBSERVED THE TWO VICTIMS FROM WHERE THE FIRST SHOEPRINT -- Q: THAT WAS THE CLOSEST OBSERVATION YOU HAD AT THAT POINT? A: YES. [...] Q: DID YOU EVER GO BACK INTO THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE GOING TO ROCKINGHAM LATER THAT MORNING? A: NO, I DIDN'T. Q: SO AFTER THE POINT THAT YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE AFTER COMPLETING YOUR NOTES, YOU NEVER WENT BACK IN AGAIN UNTIL LATER IN THE MORNING AFTER HAVING GONE TO ROCKINGHAM? A: YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID RETURN AT ABOUT 7:00, 7:15, YES. That was all lies, under oath.
I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?
I am going to continue on this thread for at least a week or two. I can prove that to be lies beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. I am first laying the foundation for the claim. The N-word testimony was not directly relevant and material to the O.J. trial. The false statements about the gloves was. Follow further posts and you will see how closely resort to the fifth amendment followed. The defense had asked for the photographer's contact prints for seven months. The prosecution claimed they did not exist. Then, when shoe expert, FBI Special Agent Bodziak testified, he produced clear contact prints in court. At a morning discovery hearing on 1 September 1995, Judge Ito ordered the prosecution to provide a copy of the contact sheets to the defense by 12 noon. The contact sheets showed the order the photographs were taken, and proved that the photograph of Det. Fuhrman was taken at night, before he ever went to Rockingham, directly contradicting the prior testimony of Det. Fuhrman and the other detectives. It was a big oh shit moment for the prosecution in general, and for Det. Fuhrman in particular. Four days later, Det. Fuhrman was forced to invoke the 5th Amendment. Note how the prosecution was caught hiding discoverable evidence - again. Hearing on discovery of the contact prints, 1 September 1995.
I significantly quoted photographer Rokahr's testimony at my #220 above. I am here only making its significance in-your-face obvious. The glove photo was taken at Bundy very shortly before Fuhrman went to Rockingham. Fuhrman lied and testified that the photo was taken after he got back from Rockingham. - - - - - - - - - - On March 10, 1995, Det. Fuhrman testified that the photograph of him pointing at the Bundy glove was taken at around 7 or 7:15 in the morning, and that he had already been to Rockingham and had returned to Bundy. He further testified that up until that point, he had gotten no closer to that glove than the landing at Bundy. In his March testimony, Det. Fuhrman had provided his own alibi against assertions that he had planted a glove at Rockingham, testifying that, before his return to Rockingham, he had never gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, and that the photograph was taken after he returned to Bundy from Rockingham. That testimony was false. Unlike his lies about using the N-word, these lies were directly relevant and material to the murder case, and his discovery and handling of evidence. Very shortly before the testimony of photographer Rolf Rokahr on September 5, 1995, seven months after Peter Neufeld's formal request, the prosecution was forced to provide a copy of the photographer's contact sheets to the defense. The first contact sheet proved, absolutely, that the picture of Det. Fuhrman was taken at the end of the first roll of film shot by the photographer who had arrived at Bundy shortly after 3 a.m. According to Lawrence Schiller, in a meeting on August 31, 1995, Barry Scheck exclaimed, "The first contact sheet, of the first roll of film shot, shows the order in which the pictures were taken... The pictures on the contact sheet taken before and after the glove photos show they were taken at night. Fuhrman testified that the picture in which he is pointing at the glove was taken at seven a.m. or later. Fuhurman testified that he was never near the glove before he went to Rockingham at four-forty." Alan Dershowictz chimed in, "His finger in the photograph is three inches away from the glove. God only knows how cose it was when the camera wasn't shooting." A little later O.J. calls and Scheck exclaims, "I got him, I got Fuhrman!" Bailey asks how he got him. Scheck explains, "I have Rokahr's photo log here. I have Fuhrman's testimony here. Peter has seen the D.A.'s set of Rokahr's contact sheets, and it shows that the picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at night." Pounding on the table, Sheck exhorts, "Now we got proof, now we got proof!" On September 5, 1995, photographer Rolf Rokahr's testimony made clear that the picture of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove, with his fiinger about three inches from it, was taken at night, not after 7 a.m., but before daybreak which was at 5:41a.m. The photograph was taken at about 4:20 to 4:35 in the morning. At about 5 a.m., Fuhrman and Vanatter arrived at Rockingham. The Fuhrman self-alibi against the accusation of glove planting at Rockingham was false testimony. Rokahr's testimony was on September 5th. The next day, September 6th, is when Det. Fuhrman invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify further in the case. As for Det. Fuhrman's own contradictory testimony, see Det. Fuhrman on March 13, 1995: A: THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY. Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR? A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED. Q: AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU? A: YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY. Q: OKAY. IN THE SAME CAR YOU GUYS CAME IN EARLIER? A: YES. Q: YOU DROVE TOGETHER, DID YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY? A: I BELIEVE ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER. Q: AGAIN, WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK TO BUNDY? A: NO, I WASN'T. Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. Of course, Mr. Rokahr was called at 2:48 a.m. and arrived at Bundy about 3:30 a.m. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove was taken in the dark, with a flash, about an hour and a half before sunrise. The contact sheet pictures before and after the glove picture prove that the glove picture was taken at night. Photographer Rokahr met up with Det. Fuhrman at about 4:10 a.m. and was asked to go around to Dorothy St. Oops! If Det. Fuhrman had not gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, in the dark, just how could Det. Fuhrman know if the color and lining of the Bundy glove and the color and lining of the Rockingham glove were a match? At the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994 A Yes, looking down, directly below the landing, there -- I believe at that point there was a heel print which appeared to be going in a westbound direction, away from the bodies, towards the alley. There was also a knit cap or what appeared to be a knit cap, dark cap-type object, and what looked like a glove at the feet of the male victim in the shrubbery area just to the north of the female victim. Q Can you describe the glove any better? A At that time, it was difficult to see it. There was another location from the north residence that I got a better view of it, a little later. And then I noticed that it was a dark brown -- or it could have been even black in the light that I was looking at it -- and it did appear to be a stocking cap when I got a closer look. Q So it was a -- it looked to you to be a dark brown or even black leather glove, and a -- did you say what color the hat was? A It was very dark. Maybe dark blue or black. Q Knit cap? A It appeared to be knit, yes. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman testified he couldn't tell much. It was only later, after he obtained a better view, that he was able to determine the glove was dark brown or black. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman was uncertain if the knit cap was a knit cap, or whether it was dark blue or black. And he did not appear to determine anything whatever about the lining of the glove. While Det. Fuhrman was a practiced liar, and could do it convincingly with a straight face, that does not mean that his false statements could withstand scrutiny. Det. Fuhrman could not afford to go another round with F. Lee Bailey at the criminal trial, and he did not testify at the civil trial. The lies of Mark Fuhrman destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman. They also destroyed the credibility of Marcia Clark who solicited his unbelieveable lies to the jury. Fuhrman was meant to be Christopher Darden's witness. After Darden was unable to swallow Fuhrman's claims about the N-word in a prep session, he refused to participate in the presentation of Fuhrman's testimony to the jury. Only then did Marcia Clark present Fuhrman's lies to the jury, get exposed for doing it, and lose credibility with the jury for having participated in that charade. As for Fuhrman, it was the lies in his testimony about the gloves that threatened to send him to prison. Those were directly relevant and material to the murder case. - - - - - - - - - - Marcia Clark, Closing Argument It was impossible to bullshit the jury and rehabilitate Det. Fuhrman or the prosecution case. Directly relevant and material false testimony was solicited and given to the jury, and it was exposed and proven. Exposed were not only Det. Fuhrman, but the other detectives who tried to cover for him, and Marcia Clark who presented Det. Fuhrman and tried to blow smoke up their collective ass.
Where's the lie?
MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that.
Testimony Of LAPD Officer Robert Riske A: HE'S POINTING TO THE GLOVE. Q: THE GLOVE AND THE CAP? A: THE CAP. Q: THE ONES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO -- LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. WHAT'S HE WEARING THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: LOOKS LIKE WHITE SUIT SHIRT, PAIR OF SLACKS. Q: NO JACKET? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE LEAVES OF THE PLANT THAT KIND OF HUNG OVER THAT ONE GLOVE AND THE SKI CAP? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THAT ACTUALLY YOU HAD TO LEFT IT UP TO SEE? A: RIGHT. Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, THE LEAVES ARE NOT LIFTED UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING THE LEAVES BACK AND HIS RIGHT HAND POINTING TO THE -- MS. CLARK: PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT, JONATHAN. THE WITNESS: OH, NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM? Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM. SO HE'S JUST POINTING TO IT WITH HIS RIGHT HAND? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE? A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT.
Where's the lie? The contact sheets proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the glove photo was taken at night, before 5:41, contrary to Fuhrman and those who would cover for Fuhrman. LAPD lies. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru #33 were shot at night, as were #36-#43, the first eight shots of the second roll. There is also Fuhrman's lie that he did not get closer to the glove than the landing at Bundy before going to Rockingham.
Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that. I do not guess. What you guess is impossible. If the photog reset the databack number, he would have duplicate numbers on the shoot, and everybody would know it. The photog does not reset the number for the databack for the duration of the shoot. Your guess is directly proven impossible by the contact sheets. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. A roll of film allows adequate length to obtain 36 exposures, 37 if you are lucky. 35 if you want to be absolutely certain the first exposure is good. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. You should get 35 - 37. Good try at impressing me with your photographic credentials. I won an honorable mention at the PFLI (Photographic Federation of Long Island) myself. That was not restricted to amateurs, and included, for example, Newsday photographers. Entrants develop and print their own photos. That outranks a local win I had. It looks as if you have never developed a roll of film, or printed a contact sheet, in your life, and it seems you have never heard of a databack. A hideously stupid comment. When you get 43 from a roll of 36, tell the Guinness book of records. You do not get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. As the photographer testified, sometimes you get 37. Try developing a few rolls and find out what you are talking about. And you might advance a little more if you are a crime scene photographer or wish to make sure your first picture is a picture and not a black space. As noted at my #235, I significantly posted testimony of the photographer, Rolf Rokahr, at my #220. The crime scene photographer uses a camera with a data back with a counter for the photo shoot where his first photo will be 000001 and the others will be numbered sequentially. The very first shot on the very first roll, photo 000001 would be a picture of his slate for the photo shoot. That's rather like the thing someone is holding when a movie director says "action!" I contains the identifying information for the photo shoot. The first roll cannot be mistaken for any other. The 34th and 35th exposures on the first roll were the pictures of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the glove in a nighttime photo with flash. Shots 1-33 were shot in the dark. Shots 34 and 35 ended the first roll and were shot in the dark. Shots 36-43 were the first shots on the second roll. They were also shot at nighttime. The contact sheets prove, beyond all doubt, that shots 34 and 35 were shot at night, and not at 7 to 7:15 a.m., nearly an hour and a half after daybreak. Photographer Rolf Rokahr, 5 Sep 1995 (Brief pause.) MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36. The first roll did not contain the absurdly ridiculous misterwhite claim of 43 shots; it contained 35 shots, as testified to by the photographer, and verified by the contact sheets. Shot 36 was the first apppearing on the second roll, corresponding to shot 36 on the camera databack. The camera databack number appeared on each sequential picture. Again, this is verified by the contact sheets. A photographic print does not usually include the the exposure number printed on the film by Kodak. It includes the databack number assigned by the user. A contact sheet includes everything, including the sprocket holes and the number assigned by Kodak. 1-33 and 34 and 35 on the first roll were taken at nighttime, as were the first eight exposures 36-43 on roll two. Fuhrman and Riske testified falsely.
You accidentally on purpose left out the date again. That was testimony on direct examination by Marcia Clark on 9 Feb 1995. Riske also testified on 14 Feb 1995. Photographer Rokahr testified on 5 Sep 1995. Next day, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT. The LAPD lied. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru 33 were shot at night, as were 36-43, the first eight shots of the second roll. Riske's response is sufficiently vague that he has left an escape. The contact sheets prove the photograph was taken at night. As a matter of record, daybreak was at 5:41 a.m. Officer Riske's testimony, while acting to cover for Det. Fuhrman in April, cannot actually change night into day, or change the time of daybreak on 13 June 1995. The only inference to be drawn is that Officer Riske's testimony was false or mistaken. Riske under cross examination on 14 Apr 1995. [...]
Continuing along with the destruction of the LAPD criminalists, OJ - FUNG FICTION AND VIDEO Mr. Fung having a terrible, no good day, April 11, 1995. How about that, Mr. Fung? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING? (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL. (A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL. (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS. MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG? THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK? MR. SCHECK: YES. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND? A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME? (DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD? (THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.) (BRIEF PAUSE.) [...] THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15- MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU. (RECESS.) [...] Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT? A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083. (DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE) (AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU? Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT? A: APPEARS TO BE, YES. Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT? A: YES. Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE? A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU? A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN. (AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Mr. Fung] WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. Followed by Barry Scheck showing Dennis Fung a video depicting evidence being picked up while a coroner is in the background of the picture. BUSTED.
Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture. OK is guilty and should have been executed.
And maybe the LAPD witnesses lied and lied and lied and got caught time after time after time after time. The question under discussion is not whether O.J. did it, but whether the prosecutors sufficient credible evidence to the jury to enable them to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed miserably.
Moving on, Evidence collected on the 13th was not booked until the 16th. Fung says that was "very quick." Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain. Protocol was to collect the entire stain. To relieve reader befuddlement on why Fung might give contrary testimony, recall that after the 14 June 1995 stain collection, there were several subsequent visits to the Bronco and the collection of more blood from the original area. If he had swatched the entire blood smear the first time, there should have been no blood there for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th collection. Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley, Madam Foreman 1995, pg. 111. June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung MR. FUNG: As long as I'm following the intention of the policy, that's what the manual's for. MR. SCHECK: And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th? MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick. MR. SCHECK: You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and booked until June 16th? MR. FUNG: That is correct.
Protocol was to collect the entire stain. Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".
Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.
He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.
Must be some transvestite you met in a bar. Or did you mean whose? In that case, it is the protocol of the LAPD, the California DoJ, and pretty much everybody concerned with the stuff. Just because Fung cut corners and violated all the rules in the book does not make it official policy. Policy for Fung was what he felt like doing at a particular time. Fung, 3 April 1995, 5803 A: I WOULD SELECT ANOTHER SWATCH, WET IT, APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND PUT IT IN THE SAME PLASTIC BAG AS THE FIRST CLOTH SWATCH FOR THAT ITEM. Q: AND ON SOME OF THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN FACT MOST OF THE STAINS, WERE THERE MORE THAN ONE SWATCH THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAIN ITSELF? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL, BUT THE STAIN. A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO ALL THOSE GO INTO THE SAME PLASTIC BAGGIE TOGETHER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THAT BAGGIE OR THAT PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE VARIOUS STAIN SWATCHES AND THE OTHER PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE CLOTH CONTROL GO WHERE? A: THOSE TWO BAGS GO INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WITH THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN. Matheson, 3 May 1995 MR. MATHESON: As much as possible, yes. MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: So you try to get as much as you can, correct? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: And your people understand that? MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes. Ragle, 21 August 1995 MR. RAGLE: You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken.
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible. It makes an anonymous blood sample. Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so. Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood." Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to." "There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other." The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing. The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human.
Oh, his testimony matches that of the convicted perjurer, Mark Fuhrman. Big whoop. The picture was taken at night, in the dark. It is proven beyond a doubt by the contact sheets. Unlike LAPD Detective Fuhrman, the photographs were not indicted and convicted for perjury.
Convicted perjurer?
Yes, convicted perjurer. A convicted felon. Facing Perjury Charge, He Gets 3-year Probation October 03, 1996 By V. Dion Haynes, Tribune Staff Writer. Tribune news services contributed to this report. He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine.
Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department". See the cluster foxtrot created by Dennis Fung with the Bronco. Fung, 11 April 1995 (DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.
Not for his testimony about the glove. Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before. So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't.
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".
If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.
And??? The felony complaint was dropped and his record expunged. Like it never happened. Except for you where it will never go away.
The defense (and nolu chan) since his use of the word automatically means he's a racist and that he planted evidence.
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 (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?
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: Considering the closing argument of Marcia Clark, for the prosecution, one might just begin to suspect that Det. Mark Fuhrman had been discredited.
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. 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. 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? (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? Perish the thought that Mazzola might have joined Team Blue Wall. The new and improved story was: [...] 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? 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.
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. [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 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 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.
Moving on, April 3, 1995 The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th Direct Examination by prosecutor Hank Goldberg MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you know--did you see that stain from your own independent recollection on the 13th? MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing it on the 13th. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it your--do you--is it your understanding of the People's position that the stain was there on the 13th? - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1995 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel. You put some evidence in, This sort of crap went on for a more than a week of testimony June 4-5, 11-17. It was a slow moving train wreck. In an odd scene, when he was dismissed, Fung went and shook the hands of the defense attorneys and defendant Simpson. Fung was followed by Mazzola. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.youtube.com/embed/lQRCN8ke-WM FUNG FUNG FUNG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - USA: OJ SIMPSON TRIAL: - - - - - - - - - -
Doesn't mean it wasn't there. It simply means it could not be seen in the photo. As a matter of fact, Detective Tom Lange saw the stain. "Tom Lange said (testified) he directed police criminalists to collect the bloodstains on the rear gate on June 14, but learned on July 3 that they had not yet been collected. The stains were then collected by criminalist Dennis Fung ..." Mystery solved. No conspiracy.
You contradict yourself. "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." Can't keep up with your own lies? Not to worry. I'll do it for you.
Comments (365 - 422) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 26 April 1995; EXCERPTS
MR. NEUFELD: You said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you know that you didn't do that then is because you saw it on the videotape; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did see a videotape, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is the reason you know that you didn't change your gloves then, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that point, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I think you testified that until you saw the videotape you didn't even have an independent recollection of having picked up the glove and the hat at Bundy that day; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure if I picked them up or Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so in the absence of independent--I'm sorry--so am I correct in stating that you didn't have an independent recollection of it until you actually saw the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: I could not remember, that is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Right-handed.
MR. NEUFELD: But you picked up the hat with your left hand; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--and could you go forward.
THE COURT: All right. Frame 13:51:46:18.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, at this point you are using the--obviously the same hands with the same gloves and you are opening up the bag, correct, for the next item?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next item is the glove, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you are--okay. Continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you used the same left hand to pick up the glove that you used to pick up the hat, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you used the same fingers, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I used the exact same fingers, but I used the same hand.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And Miss Mazzola, you didn't, in between picking up the hat and the glove, look down to see whether or not you had picked up any other biological material or any trace evidence on your hand, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, before you picked up the hat, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not you had any other biological matter on your fingertips, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, after you picked up the hat and put it in the bag, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not there was any trace evidence from the hat before you picked up the glove, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught to do that, ma'am, at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence from the hat can be transferred to the rubber glove--transferred to your rubber glove when you pick it up?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence that is on your rubber glove can then be transferred to the leather glove when you pick that up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Improbable since I handled other items between picking up the hat and the glove.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, did you say before that one way that trace evidence gets transferred from one object to another is when those two objects come in contact?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that not every time two objects come in contact does trace evidence move from one object to the next, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Depends on what type of items they are.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends on what kind of item they are, it depends where the fibers are; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends where the hairs are?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you could handle several different things and the hairs and fibers might not come off on the first thing or the second thing you touched, but might come off on the third item; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, initially on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, didn't you say that it wasn't necessary to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove because the two objects were touching? Did you testify to that on direct examination?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were in close contact, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify not that they were simply in close contact, but did you testify that they were actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I said touching or close contact.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree--I'm sorry. When you use the expression "Close contact," Does that mean touching or does that mean the two objects are close to one another but not actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could be anywhere from extremely close to each other to actually touching.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you mean it, when you said in close proximity, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Extremely close.
MR. NEUFELD: But not necessarily touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily touching.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you testified on direct examination last week in this case were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And did you change gloves in between collecting the hat and the glove? "Answer: No. "Question: Why not? "Answer: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers last week at this trial?
MS. MAZZOLA: Apparently so, yes. "very close proximity to each other."
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, after you testified to that, there was a recess, wasn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there was a recess or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, later on Mr. Goldberg asked you the same question again about the physical relationship to the hat and the glove, did he not? <
b>MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And just before you were asked those questions and you gave those answers at page 23790, were you sitting in this courtroom and present when--when Judge Ito said to you--
THE COURT: Wait, wait. Do you recall if there was a recess of any type in between those questions?
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly can't remember when the recesses are.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will--
MR. NEUFELD: Can I show her the transcript to refresh her recollection?
THE COURT: Wait, wait. We have a procedure called taking judicial notice of the Court's own proceedings. I will take judicial notice, and the jury is to assume to be true, that there was in fact a recess between those two sessions. It is a matter of the Court's own record. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, during that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Perhaps we can approach.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to counsel's insinuations.
THE COURT: Did you have any discussion with the Prosecutor or any attorney regarding this issue over the lunch recess, if you recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at a photograph.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And was that photograph shown to you by the Prosecutor?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall who showed it to me, but I saw a photograph.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't have your own? Someone else in this building had to show it to you; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was after you were shown those photographs or a photograph that you then changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw that they were extremely close but not touching, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I corrected it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, is it your position that the reason you didn't have to that change your gloves between picking up the hat and the glove is because the two items were in close proximity to one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you make that decision that two objects in close proximity but not touching don't require a change of gloves on your part, are you assuming that the hat and the glove were worn by the same person?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't assume anything.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't assume anything about that, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you don't know whether or not the hat and the glove were worn by the same person, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You certainly didn't know that at the time you were collecting the items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't even know when the items were placed at that location when you collected them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know whether those two items were placed on the ground at different times, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, since you can't assume either of those two facts, ma'am, that one cannot assume that just because two items are close to one another, although not touching, that the trace evidence on one will most likely be on the other?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there was trace evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in the event that--I'm sorry. One moment.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was taught that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were also taught to be careful with different items that are collected at a crime scene because they may have different types of hairs and fibers on them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily different hairs and fibers, but just hairs and fibers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught to assume that all items found at a crime scene are likely to have the same hairs and fibers because they are found at the same crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There is no telling what type of hairs and fibers are present.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there is no telling whether or not the same hairs and fibers on one object would be found on another object, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't make that assumption based on how far apart two items are to one another, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So, ma'am, would it--so wouldn't you agree that your earlier testimony in this case that you didn't have to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove here, because they were close to one another and therefore trace evidence on one would be on the other one, is not really consistent with what you were taught by the SID people?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say you don't know, do you mean you don't know what the supervisors at SID taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm saying I don't know if it would be inconsistent with.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if the objects had been fifteen feet apart, had you been taught by people at SID academy to change gloves before picking up the different objects?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Gloves would be changed.
MR. NEUFELD: You were taught that they should be changed under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if they are far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I said ten or fifteen apart under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not getting down to exact distances, but far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your own mind, based on your own experience, do you consider ten feet far apart?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So would you change the gloves under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: How about five feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Three feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you made the decision here that because the two items were within inches of one another that you didn't have to change the gloves; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "Inches."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The decision to change gloves was made--we did not change gloves.
MR. NEUFELD: Was the decision made by you or was the decision given to you by Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if I asked him about it or what. I'm not exactly sure what conversation we had at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean it may very well be that you asked Dennis Fung whether you should change your gloves for this situation and he said no?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the first time that the blood vial of Mr. Simpson is recorded in your notes is the next morning, June 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime the next day.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know if it was the morning or the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure which one it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any independent recollection as to when it was?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that it was not--that the blood vial was not recorded by you until after you were told about the sneakers that Detective Lange had dropped off at the SID laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And thus, it was at that point in time that you made the notations in the field notes identifying the tennis sneakers as item 17; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were recorded in the notes, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's at that point in time after you were told about the sneakers that you were then told about Mr. Simpson's blood vial; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that you then recorded--after you recorded the sneakers as item 17, that you then recorded the blood vial of Mr. Simpson as item 18?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason that you recorded it in that sequence at that time is, at that point in time, it was your understanding, was it not, that item 17 had been collected prior to item 18?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The tennis shoes were brought to my attention first. So I recorded it first.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, didn't you also say a little while ago that it was your practice whenever possible to record items as they are collected sequentially?
MS. MAZZOLA: As much as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so when you received these items, the reason you recorded no. 17 as the sneakers and no. 18 as the blood vial is because at that point in time, it was your state of mind that no. 18 was received by SID after the sneakers?
MS. MAZZOLA: The sneakers were brought to my attention. I wrote them in the field notes. Later the blood vial was brought to my attention.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I think you said earlier or we agreed earlier, I don't recall which, that there were more than 50 items collected on the 13th and 14th by you and/or Dennis Fung; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we agreed on that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that the only items of evidence where you were instructed to change the numbers were for the sneakers and the blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, on August 23rd, 1994, you testified at a hearing in this case, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime in August, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you swore to tell the truth at that hearing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?
THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
#325. To: nolu chan (#321)
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.
#326. To: misterwhite (#325)
They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:
MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
not to collect multiple items with one swab. MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, I don't know whether you can see this. I would like to draw your attention to one of the call-out lines that does not have a number on it, it is just a red dot, but it hooks up to a photograph that has an item no. 33 and depicts the brake pedals in the Bronco. Do you recognize that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were at the location did you do any testing on the brake pedals and the gas pedal as depicted in that photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did a phenolphthalein test.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do that personally or did Mr. Fung do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did that personally.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what is involved in a phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is simply taking a cotton swab, cotton-tipped swab, dampening it with a little distilled water, shaking out the excess, applying the swab to the area, adding a drop of the reagent. If there is no color change, we add a drop of hydrogen peroxide. If it is negative, nothing happens. If it is positive, it turns like a magenta hot pink.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you do that phenolphthalein test for each one of the three pedals that are depicted in the photograph that has the call-out line with no number on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the result?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, could you try to keep your voice up.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, neither you nor Mr. Fung that day collected any swatches from any of those three items, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, we did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And it is not because you were only looking for representative stains, because there were no other stains on any of those three items, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if there were any stains present.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't see any stains, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, repeating his Honor's question to you and I'm going to get it wrong--perhaps you could repeat your own question. Did Mr. Fung direct your attention to any stains at all on either of these three items?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No. THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, with regards to Miss Mazzola's testimony concerning the testing of the wire using the phenolphtalein presumptive test, I'm going to direct you to disregard her testimony that she got a positive result from that test. The reason for that is, phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result. So since there is no confirmatory test on this particular wire, you are to disregard the fact that there was a positive phenolphtalein test on the wire. All right. Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.
#327. To: nolu chan (#326)
"And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test."
#328. To: misterwhite (#327)
Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice.
The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.
THE COURT: ... phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result.
And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.
So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case.
Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case.
And wasting my time.
#329. To: misterwhite (#327)
Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?
#330. To: nolu chan (#329)
#331. To: A K A Stone (#330)
I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?
THE COURT: All right. How about the discovery matter?
MR. DARDEN: We just received a letter a few moments ago on the discovery matter and we have one copy and we're trying to read it, read over it right now.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll hear from Mr. Scheck on the discovery issue and let's see how far we get.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. As you know, yesterday, we had a status conference on discovery, and you were I know occupied writing your decision, and as a consequence, were unable to join us and asked us to put some of the results of that conference in a letter. We have a number of issues that we believe the court must take up. The first--many of them dealing with the rebuttal case and discovery of the Prosecution's rebuttal case. But before I get to that, we would like to call to the court's attention an extremely significant point. As the court probably recalls, the Defense has been requesting for several months in this case, really from the beginning, contact sheets of the crime scene photographs. We have never had a photo log in this case and we never had contact sheets indicating the order in which pictures were taken. Yesterday, we saw for the first time big beautiful color contact sheets of crime scene photographs. We saw those because Mr. Bodziak of the FBI had requested negatives and prepared contact sheets apparently in anticipation of assisting the Prosecution in the cross-examination of Dr. Lee and calling Mr. Bodziak as a rebuttal witness in this case. Examination of those contact sheets reveal that the picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove at Bundy appears to have been taken at night because the pictures to our eyes at this point prior to and subsequent to the Fuhrman picture, pointing at the glove, revealed that to be taken at night. Now, this has very serious implications. The Prosecution turned over a long time ago a statement of a photographer named Rolf Rokahr who initially told investigators, Detective Luper, that he had arrived at the Bundy scene sometime after midnight, had waited for the arrival of Detective Phillips and Fuhrman. When they arrived, he was then directed by them to go take individual pictures of evidence. Prior to their arrival, he had taken some overall shots. He then indicated in his statement-
THE COURT: Did he-- I thought Mr. Rokahr testified. I know we've heard his name and seen his likeness on some of the-
MR. SCHECK: I understand that. But my point is-
THE COURT: No. I'm just asking you if you have some-
MR. SCHECK: I don't recall him testifying at the trial-
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: --but his name did come up in the suppression hearings, and in fact, there was an indication by the Prosecution--they filed I think in a responsive brief to Mr. Uelmen's papers--that his initial statement as to the chain of events on the morning of June 13th was mistaken as to times and perhaps as to sequence, and they submitted an amended version of his testimony. The point is, is that he had given us this statement a long time ago indicating that the pictures of Fuhrman pointing to the glove would be consistent with having been taken at night. The crime scene log at Bundy indicates his arrival at 3:25. His initial statement says later. But even if he had arrived at 3:25 and took pictures at that time, that's still night. The sworn testimony of Detective Fuhrman in this case-
THE COURT: Darkness hours, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: --is that that picture was taken after 7 o'clock in the morning. That is also essentially the testimony of Detective Phillips. It is consistent with the testimony of Detective Lange and Vannatter, indicating that they directed Fuhrman to go back and do this comparison of gloves and take a photograph.
THE COURT: All right. So you feel at this point that you need to have this contact.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. We need to have that contact print because we think that that opens up a whole avenue that impeaches not only Detective Fuhrman's testimony, but it impeaches the other detectives as to their movements between crime scenes that evening. There are no notes about exactly how they proceeded and there are other contradictions, substantial contradictions.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, does the contact sheet that you saw yesterday include frame numbers?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, it did. What we arranged with Mr. Hodgman at the end of the day--Mr. Hodgman--and I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but he indicated to us at that conference, and I'm sure he'll confirm today, that he personally recalls Mr. Neufeld asking him several months ago for these contact sheets, had determined they didn't exist. And I know that we asked for them previously.
THE COURT: I recollect our discussion about the lack of a photo log.
MR. SCHECK: And these contact sheets. Right now, it's my understanding that we have made arrangements, and at this moment, Mr. Neufeld is at a laboratory with the representative of the District Attorney's office attempting to have high quality reproductions made of these contact sheets. Also, I should add-
THE COURT: Well, let me ask the more important question. Where are the original negatives?
MR. SCHECK: I believe that-
MR. HODGMAN: Well, they're at the photo lab now.
MR. SCHECK: They're at the photo lab.
MR. HODGMAN: They're being handled right now, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: So we are very, very concerned about that. In addition, as the court noted when Dr. Lee testified-
THE COURT: Well, let me ask another question, see if we can just cut to the chase at this point. When will they be available to the Defense, Mr. Hodgman?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, your Honor, they're being made available to the court or--excuse me--to the Defense right now. We made arrangements with the Defense yesterday. We obtained the negatives. We have an investigator. We agreed to a non-machine reproduction or development of these photos. We have an investigator there just to make sure we don't lose our negatives. But it's being taken care of right now. These contact sheets, which simply show an order--photos which the Defense has had for months and months, were recently acquired by us. I don't know precisely when. I would estimate, but I'll have to let Mr. Goldberg address this.
THE COURT: All right. So don't we need to see these contact sheets, have Mr. Scheck evaluate them and then take the matter up at that point to see what the significance is?
MR. HODGMAN: I think that would be appropriate, your Honor. But the point is, your Honor, discovery is being made. We made the arrangements yesterday. And I'm sure Mr. Scheck has more he'd like to address the court about. So we'll handle it item by item.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: But the major point here is that we've been asking these for a long time and they told us they didn't exist and they couldn't be made. And now, just because Mr. Bodziak had them made in an effort to confront Dr. Lee's testimony, all of a sudden, we find something that we think is extremely significant on a crucial matter.
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Scheck, why don't we do this. Let's assume that you get your copies of the contact sheets sometime later today. You'll have time to evaluate them.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: And if you can--after evaluating them, there is some significance to you and to the Defense position, then we'll take that up at that time.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, I should note in the Brady motion that we filed with the court today, we indicate the lines we are pursuing here because we think it has significance with respect to the decision you rendered. I should note also with respect to the--these photographs that the enlargements in the treated photographs that we saw yesterday--and we're endeavoring to have these copies made as well-we think provide, just from my untrained eye, looking at them--and that doesn't substitute, as the court has acknowledged, for Dr. Lee's trained eye, Dr. Lee's magical eye frankly. But looking at those photographs, I think that there may be some additional parallel line imprints in the walkway area that are consistent with our contention that we have footprints of two individuals involved in this homicide.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: And we think that those pictures are potentially quite exculpatory as well and we should have seen them earlier. The next issue with respect to discovery is that Miss Clark had indicated that we were going to see all these photographs. And of course, they were slow in coming, but you had ordered forthwith it was our understanding.
THE COURT: Which photographs are we speaking about since we've done this several times?
MR. SCHECK: Let's start with the gloves. We thought that you had ordered forthwith for production yesterday or-
THE COURT: Day before.
MR. SCHECK: --whatever forthwith means, the--what they had with respect to videotapes or blow-ups on the gloves and whatever they propose to introduce in their rebuttal case.
THE COURT: I recollect--
MR. SCHECK: And we're not by any means conceding they have a right to do that. We haven't gotten that.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, as I indicated to the court I believe it was Wednesday, there was an event concerning these photographs yesterday and basically we were having them reviewed by someone. We've had the benefit of that event having occurred. Accordingly, I've instructed our staff to prepare for submission either to the Defense or to the court under 1054.7, just to be overly cautious about it, the photos and videos that we would either potentially or actually seek to introduce in our rebuttal case. I was informed earlier this morning that we should have the package complete by noon. I should advise the court that-
THE COURT: They're to be turned over by noon?
MR. HODGMAN: Yes. And by being turned over, the bulk of it we'll give to the Defense. There will be perhaps one or two submissions to the court where we're still not quite sure. So--but out of an abundance of caution, we will turn it over to the court under 1054.7.
THE COURT: All right. Then what I'm going to do is direct that that package be made available to the Defense by noon today, that anything that you feel is not within the discovery statute, submit to the court by noon today for the court's review.
#332. To: A K A Stone (#330)
Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.
Q From that vantage point, looking down on the victims, were you able to see any items of evidence?
Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes.
#333. To: nolu chan (#329)
That was all lies, under oath.
#334. To: nolu chan (#220)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?
MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.
#335. To: nolu chan (#220)
(Edited)
#336. To: misterwhite (#333)
That was all lies, under oath.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?
MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.
#337. To: misterwhite (#334)
Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet--except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first--by the way, how many exposures did you get out of that first roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There would be 36, 35, 36.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35?
MR. ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first--on its first advance advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. ROKAHR: So I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37.Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.
Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter.
MR. NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item no. 35--not item number, but photograph no. 35?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I think it's--let me just check with this one.
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NEUFELD: That's the next roll?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. Either the next roll or the last negative. I may have reloaded walking around to the front of the building.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?
MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes. MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?
MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?
MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?
MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.
MR. ROKAHR: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?
MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.
MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.
MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?
MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.
MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
#338. To: misterwhite (#335)
Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE?
Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHILE YOU WERE THERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER NEVER CAME INSIDE AND TOOK THINK PICTURES OF ANYTHING INSIDE THAT PLACE, RIGHT?
A: NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO.
Q: YOU NEVER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT?
A: NO.
Q: AND IN YOUR PRESENCE YOU NEVER HEARD EITHER PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN OR LANGE OR VANNATTER INSTRUCT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THE INTERIOR?
A: NO. Q: OKAY. WE TALKED LAST WEEK ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE DETECTIVES LEFT TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A: I REMEMBER SPEAKING OF IT.
Q: WHAT TIME DID THEY LEAVE?
A: I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
Q: YOU TOLD US THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR?
A: HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.
Q: YOU THOUGHT THEY GOT BACK ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A: BETWEEN 6:30, 6:45.
Q: 6:30, 6:45. SO THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT-- IF THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT ABOUT 5:00, WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
A: 5:15, 5:30. I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THE SUN CAME UP THAT MORNING IN JUNE?
A: NO, I DON'T.
Q: SO SOMEWHERE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THEY WERE GONE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: WHEN THEY LEFT, WHEN ALL FOUR DETECTIVES LEFT, THE THREE WHO WERE NOW IN CHANGE OF THAT SCENE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE AT THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: MY SUPERVISOR.
#339. To: A K A stone, misterwhite (#332)
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS?
A: YES.
Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG?
A: YES.
Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE?
A: YES.
Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE RING?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?
A: NOTE PAD MAYBE.
Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD?
A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES.
MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.
THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?
MR. SCHECK: 1082.
A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE.
Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE --
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE?
A: OKAY.
Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL?
A: RIGHT.
Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT?
A: YES.
Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.
A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE.
Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT?
A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.
Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE?
A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT.
Q: SEE IT NOW?
A: YES. COULD BE, YES.
Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?
A: YES.
Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?
A: YES.
#340. To: nolu chan (#339)
#341. To: A K A Stone (#340)
Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.
#342. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#340)
I felt that Dennis was too busy trying to be protective of his position. His rank is a Criminalist II, but somewhere along the line I think he missed something. I think that he did not do a professional job in collecting the evidence. The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Mazzola was young and new on the job. Mazzola was sitting there in the living room and nodded out for twenty minutes or so. If she didn't have anything to do for nearly a half hour, she could have taken the evidence to Parker Center or wherever, and had it booked or refrigerated while Dennis continued to collect or do whatever he had to do. I think what happened is a lot of people just got too caught up in the moment and didn't do their jobs properly. I just thought he was sloppy.
MR. SCHECK: Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I'm not aware of one."
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab?
MR. FUNG: I don't know of any document to that effect.
MR. SCHECK: And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain?
MR. FUNG: I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about.
MR. SCHECK: Stains on the console?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same.
MR. SCHECK: You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence?
MR. FUNG: If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but--
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them?
MR. FUNG: You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual.
MR. FUNG: I believe I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you cite a specific page of the transcript?
MR. SCHECK: Let's do it this way.
MR. SCHECK: Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to rules.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes.
MR. SCHECK: The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you?
THE COURT: Haven't we gone over this already?
MR. SCHECK: Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast.
THE COURT: Doesn't mean we have to do it again.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here.
MR. FUNG: The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence?
#343. To: nolu chan (#342)
Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.
#344. To: nolu chan (#342)
The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous.
#345. To: nolu chan (#338)
#346. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)
Who's protocol?
Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".
Q: MR. FUNG, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD STAINS AND SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. WHEN YOU COLLECT A STAIN, IF YOU APPLY A SWATCH TO THAT STAIN, AND IT DOES NOT COLLECT THE ENTIRE STAIN, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
MR. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain?
#347. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#344)
Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.
"I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders."
#348. To: misterwhite (#345)
He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.
#349. To: nolu chan (#348)
#350. To: A K A Stone (#349)
(Edited)
Convicted perjurer?
Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time
#351. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)
Protocol was to collect the entire stain.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.
Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?
A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.
Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.
Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?
A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.
Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?
A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?
MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --
THE COURT: 1088.
MR. SCHECK: 1088.
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.
Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.
Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?
A: YES.
Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.
Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?
A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.
Q: OF THE BRONCO?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?
A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?
A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.
Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.
Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?
A: I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?
A: MONTHS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
Q: YEAH.
A: YES, YES.
Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?
Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?
Q: YES.
A: YES.
Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?
A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.
Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.
Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?
A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.
Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?
A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.
Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?
Q: WITH CARE?
A: YES.
Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --
THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.
MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.
Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?
A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.
Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?
A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.
Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.
#352. To: nolu chan (#351)
(Edited)
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
#353. To: A K A Stone (#349)
Convicted perjurer?
#354. To: nolu chan (#347)
(Edited)
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.
#355. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#353)
#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.
#357. To: A K A Stone (#355)
"If it is because he said nigger. Who cares."
#358. To: misterwhite (#352)
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.
Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?
A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.
Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.
Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?
A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.
Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?
A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?
MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --
THE COURT: 1088.
MR. SCHECK: 1088.
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.
Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.
Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?
A: YES.
Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.
Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?
A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.
Q: OF THE BRONCO?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?
A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?
A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.
Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.
Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?
A: I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?
A: MONTHS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
Q: YEAH.
A: YES, YES.
Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?
Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?
Q: YES.
A: YES.
Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?
A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.
Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.
Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?
A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.
Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?
A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.
Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?
Q: WITH CARE?
A: YES.
Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --
THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.
MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.
Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?
A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.
Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?
A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.
Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.
#359. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#353)
Convicted perjurer?
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.
#360. To: misterwhite (#354)
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.
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 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.
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: 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.
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.
#361. To: A K A Stone (#355)
If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.
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?
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"--
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]
#362. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#357)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you about the rear gate stain that you recovered on July the 3rd of 1994.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a photograph of the rear gate at Bundy?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was taken on June 13th.
MR. SCHECK: Do we have that here?
MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions.
MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I did not see it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?
MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.
MR. SCHECK: But you're certain it was not planted there by anybody?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that calls for speculation. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
You take some evidence out,
You do the hokey pokey and you move it all about,
Reasonable doubt.
By OJ MANIA
AP Archive
Published on Jul 21, 2015
#363. To: nolu chan (#362)
"The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th"
#364. To: nolu chan (#359)
"What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]