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: 118952
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 403.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering?
Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped. But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example. I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm.
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial.
A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms.
This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it. Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. This could change everything.
You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster. But I'm still not going to do that. People already do that.
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect.
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience. The judicial result is that shit happens. OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand. What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly.
And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man. I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess. The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died. They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses. The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html
http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.
Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones. But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching. Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.
[misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial. The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari. - - - - - - - - - - O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened - - - - - - - - - - An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman. IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves. "Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives." It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.
Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car. But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo? Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman. There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified. Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?
[11519] - - - - - - - - - - MR. DARDEN: Miss Vemich, what was it about those gloves that made them sell? The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York. What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990. The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?," Ms. Vemich answered, "No." MR. DARDEN: And to the right of the "2" we see the number "$77.00"? [...] [11529] MR. DARDEN: How many different types of Aris gloves did you sell at $55.00 during December? [11530] MS. VEMICH: No, they did not. [11531] MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No.
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves? misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 9:21:49 ET I do not have a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves. You do not have a picture of O. J. Simpson verified as wearing those gloves. There is no evidence that either of the two evidence gloves have been verified as purchased by Nicole Simpson, or given to O.J. Simpson. There is no picture of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves that obviously did not fit, except for Darden's demonstration disaster of the century. You present a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing a pair of BLACK gloves, as O.J. wearing those gloves. Text associated with the image: "Newscast video frame showing OJ wearing black gloves just like (sic - the evidence gloves were brown) those found at the murder scene and behind Kato's cabin." Maybe this is why your source is called Altered Dimensions. The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves. MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights? MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves. I understand how hard it is for wingnut news to get the details right, but when all else fails, read the transcript. And Altered Dimensions seems to think that a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing BLACK gloves, gloves they identify as Aris Isotoner gloves, definitely depict O. J. Simpson wearing the same exact gloves as the BROWN Aris Leather Light gloves in evidence. - - - - - - - - - - https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png The image link is shown above. Oh, there they ain't. http://altereddimensions.net/2012/oj-simpson-murders The image appears in the article at Altered Dimensions at the link above. The image has the embedded text, "O. J. wearing the same type of gloves." MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. The gloves depicted in the image are BLACK. The gloves in evidence are BROWN. The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all. He could not rule out that they were Aris gloves. He also could not rule out that is was a different glove from a different manufacturer.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript. Really. What transcript did you read? The tortured phrasing was, "What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of." He could not unequivocally identify the photo gloves as Aris, or anything else. He saw features that were not unique to Aris. He does not claim to have knowledge of every brand of glove, and he worked for only one brand. In his tortured way, he admitted he could not unequivocally say the photo gloves were Aris gloves, and he admitted that he saw nothing to unequivocally identify them as any other brand. He saw non-unique features that did not identify any brand. MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263? MR. RUBIN: I did. [18774] MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case." He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto. I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony. MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony. MR. RUBIN: What I meant-- THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement. [18775] MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us? MR. RUBIN: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263? MR. RUBIN: I did. [18774] MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case." He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove. He admitted that he was not familiar with all styles of gloves by all manufacturers in the world. He worked for one manufacturer, and one only. - - - - - - - - - - The glove expert testified that he could not unequivocally identify the photographed gloves were Aris brand gloves, much less specifically style 70263. He identified features on Aris gloves that are also present on other brands of gloves. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. And he did not see anything to make him certain it was an Aris glove. Proving, he saw a glove in a photograph which he could not positively identify.
No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.
The defense did not have to prove anything, not even reasonable doubt. The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable competing explanation to any claim of fact based on circumstantial evidence, the claim pointing to innocence must be adopted. In your attempts to prove that the prosecution met its burden, your attempts have: There is a good reason you cannot prove, on the basis of the evidence in the criminal trial, that the evidence gloves belonged to, and were worn by, O.J. Simpson. The prosecution never proved it in court. The criminal prosecution never proved that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes either. I will attempt to demonstrate that the defense presented the more believable theory of how the one glove got to Rockingham, as shown by the actual evidence at trial. The prosecution theory has a serious problem with science. And I wish to note that Det. Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham is consistent with O.J. Simpson and/or one or more others having committed the murders. The Rockingham glove could not be ignored, but it presented a problem for the prosecution. Admitting Det. Fuhrman planted it would taint all the evidence in the case. Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter's testimony is incredible, as in it defies all rational belief. According to Det. Vanatter, two paragraphs are the totality of notes he took about the activities of the 12th and 13th of June. BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES? A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN. Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS? A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH. Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU? A: I DIRECTED OTHER INFORMATION BE RECORDED, BUT YES, THAT IS TRUE. Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter admitted the information he included in his sworn statement to obtain a search warrant was false. Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT? A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT. Q: YOU REPORTED -- A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES. Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT? A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A [4758] BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ. Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR? A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING. Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR? A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45. Q: AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT? A: YES. Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ? A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE HUMAN BLOOD? A: YES, I SAID THAT. Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD? A: THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD. Q: YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, SIR. Q: DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH WARRANT? A: NO. Q: WHY NOT? [4759] A: I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T -- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT. Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE? A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T. Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT. Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN? A: THERE ARE NO NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS NOT, SIR. Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION. Q: WHEN WAS THAT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN? [4760] A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH. Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION? A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES. Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES? A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT. Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT? A: YES, SIR. Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE? A: IT DOESN'T. How Criminalist Fung was caught on videotape, Rockingham glove in hand, stepping over Ron Goldman's body. MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag? MR. FUNG: Yes. The unexplained movement of the Bundy glove between photographs. MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it-- MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Yes. Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054: Det. Fuhrman went past the air conditioning duct looking for the killer who had nearly severed the head of Nicole Simpson. Did he call for backup or draw his weapon. Nahhh. At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it. Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT [4142] ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116? A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME. Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR? A: YES. [...] Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS? A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE. Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER? A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE. Detective Mark Fuhrman Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. Photographer Rokahr established that Detective Fuhrman's timeline was skewed by several hours. Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR? A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING. Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY? A: YES, MA'AM. As I documented at #220, photographer Rolf Rokahr established that he took the photograph at night, at an approximate time between 4:25 and 4:40 a.m., before Detective Fuhrman left Bundy for Rockingham. The defense theory of how one glove got to Rockingham is that Detective Fuhrman found two gloves at Bundy, put one in a plastic bag, and transported that glove to Rockingham. The prosecution theory is that O.J. Simpson was wearing both gloves at Bundy, lost one at Bundy, and dropped the other one at Rockingham. Under the defense theory, the Rockingham glove was not there until after Detective Mark Fuhrman placed the glove after interviewing Kato Kaelin and hearing about the three thumps. Under this theory, the glove was planted sometime after 6:00 a.m on April 13. Under the prosecution theory, the Rockingham glove must have been dropped before O.J. left with Alan Park, the limo driver. That was around 11 p.m. More specifically, it ties to the three thumps heard by Kato Kaelin around 10:40 to 10:45 p.m. on April 12. There is a conundrum which must be addressed by the prosecution. It is rather like the cooking time of regular grits in My Cousin Vinny. Do the laws of science not apply at the Rockingham address? According to the prosecution theory, the glove was out in the warm summer air of Los Angeles in June for a period of over seven (7) hours. And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it. What prevented the blood from drying for seven hours? The defense theory posits that the glove was in a plastic bag, in Det. Fuhrman's pocket, for seven hours and esposed to the air for minutes. The prosecution theory is.... what?... blood does not dry at the Rockingham address?
No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky. "12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.
No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are quoting testimony from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing, explicitly flagged as such by me, and not testimony from the trial. I know you like all the "evidence" that was never evidence at the criminal trial, but none of that could have been considered by the jury at the criminal trial. There was a reason that I flagged this and emphasized this as being from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing the year before the trial. It was not evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. In the testimony at the criminal trial, Det. Fuhrman was asked about his testimony at the 1994 Preliminary Hearing. I provided the relevant excerpt from his 1994 Preliminary Hearing just to show why the prosecution at the criminal trial could not ignore the topic or claim the glove was dry. You may not like what Det. Fuhrman testified to at the criminal trial, but I provided it and flagged it as the testimony from the 1995 criminal trial. At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it. Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT [4142] ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116? A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME. Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR? A: YES. [...] Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS? A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE. Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER? A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE. Detective Mark Fuhrman Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. You are now back at square one. FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, how do you explain how the glove sat outside in the warm Los Angeles summer air in June for over seven (7) hours, without drying out, and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it? Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process? There is no such testimonial evidence, therefore this is nothing. The jury could not reach a verdict of guilty based on the ruminations of misterwhite or anyone else who did not appear in court and testify. For this flyer, you would need to have an expert witness. Judge Ito, EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. [...] YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are arguing the affirmative on that proposition, supposedly. Judge Ito, instruction to the jury, FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT. Only the prosecution is tasked with presenting evidence. With circumstantial evidence, any rational explanation by the defense that leads to innocence must be accepted by the jury.
I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky. How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am. "Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?" Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?
I believe that what you believe was not in evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. The actual testimony at the trial was evidence before the jury for them to consider. Actually, you are making believe you are responding to my #236 wherein I quoted the testimony verbatim from a transcript. On March 13, 1995: On Direct, questions by Marcia Clark A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE. [...] Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. On March 14, 1995: On Cross, questions by Barry Scheck. Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: YOU DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE? A: I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE. Det. Vanatter, 16 March 1995 Direct, questions by Christopher Darden, Boldface added to text to indicate the point Christopher Darden was attemptig to make. Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. - - - - - - - - - - Are you claiming he was a bumbling amateur? Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Hank Goldberg, 28 August 1995 MR. GOLDBERG: It would be a very bad idea to actually take my glove off and touch it to make sure, wouldn't it? DR. LEE: Well, some people does that, but I don't do that. MR. GOLDBERG: And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you? DR. LEE: I would not suggest people--you should make sure it dry basically. MR. GOLDBERG: But not with your hands, right? DR. LEE: Not your hand. - - - - - - - - - - Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?" Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You have made no attempt to show where any such proof was offered to the jury. It is reasonable that something that dries "very rapidly" does not remain wet for seven (7) hours in the weather conditions that prevailed in Los Angeles on that night and early morning. It is sheer desperation to claim that the air conditioner for the guest house being used by Kato Kaelin significantly changed the atmospheric conditions outdoors on Simpson's estate. The prosecution did not attempt to make that particular argument, so the jury was deprived of its levity and could not consider it. FBI Agent Bodziak, question by F. Lee Bailey, 19 June 1995 MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly. Prof. Herbert MacDonell, 31 July 1995 MS. CLARK: Well, objection. The report speaks for itself. THE COURT: Overruled. PROF. MACDONELL: The temperature range was between 63 degrees Fahrenheit and 66 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the document I have. MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, when you said the temperature range was between 63 and 66 degrees, does it also state what the dew point was? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, it does. MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, is there any indication from the official national weather service printout here that there was any dew on the ground on the night of June 12th into the early morning hours of June 13th? PROF. MACDONELL: Well, it indicates that the temperature--the dew point range was below the temperature range all the times, so there would have been no dew formation. [...] MR. NEUFELD: You said that the temperature between those hours of approximately ten o'clock on the evening of the 12th and 9:00, 9:30 the next day, were between 63 and 66 degrees; is that correct? PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct. Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Barry Scheck, 28 August 1995, DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you about drying times with different kinds of materials under different conditions. Do you recall that? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, on this study are a series of experiments performed for different amounts of blood. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: One being a single drop, one being one milliliter of blood, one being five milliliters of blood, one being a hundred milliliters of blood. DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And then there are a series of materials listed on the chart; is that correct? DR. LEE: That's correct. MR. SCHECK: And out of the materials listed, which one would be the most comparable to the swatches at issue in this case? MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: Cotton cloth. MR. SCHECK: Now, what are the drying times for a single drop of blood under the three different conditions for cotton cloth? MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: It says condition 1, 55 minute, condition 2, 50 minute, condition 3, 350 minute. MR. SCHECK: All right. And 350 minutes would be? DR. LEE: Approximately six, seven, six some hours. MR. SCHECK: And-- DR. LEE: Six--little under six hours. MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, in terms of this experiment, what is condition 3? What set--in terms of temperature, humidity what is condition 3? DR. LEE: Condition 3 appear in this handout, laboratory cold with good air movement, temperature 38 degree Fahrenheit plus minus .1 degree, relative humidity, 80 percent plus minus 6 percent. MR. SCHECK: Well, in plain English, is that a cold, damp room? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: Is that something close to precipitation? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: Now, what about condition 1 and condition 2? DR. LEE: Condition 1 says laboratory work table which no more room, air circulation, temperature, 75 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent. MR. SCHECK: Would that be what would be ordinarily referred to as room temperature in a laboratory? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And what is condition 2? DR. LEE: Condition 2, it says drying hood with good air movement, temperature, 76 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent. MR. SCHECK: So for a single drop of blood then under condition 1 which described as normal room temperature, the findings of labor and Epstein is the drying time is 55 minutes? DR. LEE: Yeah. Under one hour. MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: And under condition 2, it's 50 minutes? DR. LEE: Yeah. Only 50 minutes. 50, not 15. Five zero.
So? He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist. Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course. There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation. Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry?
Det. Fuhrman testified: A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, with no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the Bloomingdals glove, you affirmatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought. You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove. It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less. I did not testify. I quote actual testimony and you post personal opinions. Det. Fuhrman testified that it was moist and sticky. A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. There is affirmative evidence that it and the Bundy glove were a pair. There was affirmative evidence that they contained blood from the Bundy victims. There is evidence that someone transported the glove from Rockingham to Bundy after the murders. There is a lack of evidence that Simpson transported the glove. Such theory is especially troublesome to the prosecution timeline(s). The theory that Fuhrman transported the glove is reasonable. Any reasonable explanation leading to innocence must be adopted over a competing theory leading to guilt. It is not proof by a preponderance of the evidence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required. Fuhrman was a corrupt, racist cop. After F. Lee Bailey got done with him, he pleaded the 5th Amendment and was useless as a detective and left the LAPD. He was notoriously exposed as a corrupt detective who lied on the witness stand in a murder trial. Det. Fuhrman was not Einstein, he was a high school dropout with a GED. Dr. Henry Lee is an internationally renowned expert. Dryness on blood evidence is determined by looking at the evidence, not touching it. Fuhrman looked at the glove. Fuhrman testified, A: YES, YES.
No. I claimed no such thing. I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it. Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?
That's strange. The following were verbatim quotes from a transcript. Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it. Det. Vanatter not only observed the qualities of wet blood, he observed the absence of what he stated were the qualities of dried blood. Det. Fuhrman testified: A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia? -- July 18, 1995 - - - - - - - - - - Just what do you infer from Vanatter's testimony that it looked like blood and it didn't appear to be dried blood, where it would be flaky and falling off??? It not only looked wet, it lacked the properties of blood that is dried. Det. Vanatter testified: A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. It appeared to be blood. It was not flaky and falling off as one would expect of dried blood. It appeared that it was moist.
He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab. Anyone do that with the glove? No? I guess they all just hovered around the glove laying on the ground saying, "It appears shiny. No, it appears wet. To me it appears sticky. Nah. It appears moist."
- - - - - - - - - - There you go thinking again. It appears that your testimony is that you have never worked or been trained in law enforcement or in the proper method of evidence collection. That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it. http://www.terriwoodlawoffice.com/pdfdocs/Forensics_Blood_Stains.pdf If a criminalist must test an item to know if it is wet or dry, he should have some other job. The criminologist acted properly in not sucking the liquid out of the stain. To the extent possible, the technician collecting the evidence should preserve it for the serologist or lab for testing. http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html If the item is small and transportable, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag to prevent contamination of other objects). Bring it to a secured location, take it out of the bag and allow the evidence and the bag to thoroughly air dry. Repackage in the original paper bag or, if necessary, a new paper bag. If a new paper bag is used, then the air dried original container should be packaged with the item of evidence. Disadvantages: More work for the serologist; bulky items use more storage space. Dennis Fung, By manipulating the evidence out at the scene, valuable trace evidence could be lost; so what we try to do is just leave it as undisturbed as possible by packaging it and bringing it back to the lab. Q. You try to do as little testing as you can of items in order to preserve them? A. Yes. Q. And only if it is absolutely necessary do you test them at the scene? A. Yes. - - - - - - - - - - Which glove? Do you speak of the Rockingham glove? Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene? Are you claiming something, or are you just throwing out nonsense questions firmly answered by testimonial evidence? Why do you not know the answer to your question?
How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab. "Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?" It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory. But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet. Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth.
How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab. Put down the blue crystal and present the testimony where anyone touched evidence with a swab to see if it was wet. After this imaginary test, did the anonymous tester get a result? Who testified to this test and result, and on what date. It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory. But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet. Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth. Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. Either you know the answer or you don't. Just above you stated, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." Are you now saying blood evidence was not collected from the Rockingham glove? Try to keep your fantasy story straight. Either evidence is collected with a sterile swab as you state, or it is not. Either someone touched the Rockingham glove with a sterile glove or not.
I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet.
I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet. Why do you have no idea? Under what circumstances does someone touch the evidence with a wet sterile swab? Let me help a clueless brother out regarding the Rockingham glove. I assumed nothing. Dr. Henry Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is dry is to look at it, only amateur touches, he does not do that. You claimed that you would poke it with a swab to see if it was wet. You assume wrong. I cited and quoted the testimony of witnesses who looked at the glove and observed indicia that it was moist or sticky, and observed as missing, indicia that it was dry. Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab.
It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say: "That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it." If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene? Cop #1: Hey. That glove appears moist and wet and sticky.
"That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it." You claimed you would touch the glove with a swab to see if it was wet. Are you really idiot enough to touch a glove with a wet swab to see if the glove is wet? You claimed "It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry." And, you rhetorically ask and answer, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." The wet swab was not used for evidence collection, it was used in a phenolphthalein test allegedly performed by you know who. It was not allegedly using a wet swab to see if the glove was wet. Using a wet swab would rather defeat the purpose of testing to see if the glove was wet. Brilliant minds, such as your own, may disagree. Of course, this clown got caught in so many lies that it is difficult to give credence to anything he said. Perhaps it was because the geniuses in charge were called Dumb and Dumber. But Dumb observed that the indicia of the glove being moist and sticky were there, and the indicia of the glove being dry were absent. While you are at it, why did they not collect the blood drops off the back of Nicole Brown Simpson's body? You never know, there may have been some of the killer's blood. I would have given it serious consideration as evidence to be preserved. Why did the autopsy doctor throw out the stomach contents? It made determining the time of death more difficult, with the prosecution resorting to attaching the time of death to a barking dog. As for the Crime Scene Identification Check List at Rockingham: MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to take a look at People's 161 identification. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, is the resolution on your screen good enough so that you can-- MS. MAZZOLA: Not really. MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just focus in on the area that says "OIC name." Okay. You need to pull the paper a little bit over to the right. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you recognize this? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you--is this your handwriting? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: And your name is where it says "Officer in Charge"? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. The crime scene identification check list identifies Andrea Mazzola as the Officer-in-Charge. Blood evidence is collected on swatches, not swabs or Q-tips. When all else fails, read the testimony. It tells you explicitly how the blood evidence is collected, and the procedures for recording the place and time collected. The criminalists first west to Rockingham, upon leaving Rockingham went to Bundy, and later returned to Rockingham. It was on the return visit to Rockingham that the magic sock was collected. First the basics of evidence collection and documentation, and then I will proceed to the actual collection of the magic sock. This is foundational to discussing who collected the magic sock and when. Your magic 8-ball does not apply. MS. MAZZOLA: May I-- MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see that--can we see that cell? THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, can you see it on your monitor here? MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, okay. THE COURT: Sorry? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That shows two spots, blood spots, that are numbered. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is the first phase in this collection stated on the board the numbering and measuring phase? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: And is there a documentation aspect to that phase as well? MS. MAZZOLA: The location, measurements, the photo i.d. Numbers and a brief description are noted on the evidence collection sheet. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are the items also photographed before they are collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they are. MR. GOLDBERG: So all of that occurs prior to the physical collection? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 2 that says "Dampened swatch," what is involved in this stage of the collection procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: A small cloth swatch of the approximate size you need is selected with a pair of clean tweezers. A drop of distilled water is put on the swatch. It is then shaken so any excess water is shaken off. MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention now to cell no. 3 that says "Collect substrate control," what is done in this phase of the correction procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: The cloth swatch is placed on the substrate, the concrete or whatever, as close to the stain as possible, but without getting it in the stain, to get a background control of what the sample is on. MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "Substrate" mean? MS. MAZZOLA: That is just the substance that the item of interest is on. MR. GOLDBERG: So if the item of interest, for example, instead of being on a walkway, were on a wall, what would be the substrate? MS. MAZZOLA: The wall would be the substrate. MR. GOLDBERG: Or if it were on clothing, what would be the substrate? MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing. MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of taking this control that is near the stain but not on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it could be used for two factors: One is to provide a background, what the sample was on, so when they go to run tests on the sample, they can see if the background itself would interfere with the tests. The control can also be checked for DNA or other items of interest to see if any contamination took place. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so this control is basically just a blank swatch that has water on it that is put on the concrete in this example? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: So do you handle this piece of evidence exactly--or this piece of swatch exactly the same way that you would handle a swatch that was actually put on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: It is handled the same way. MR. GOLDBERG: Why is it that you use the identical handling procedures for the substrate control that you would use for a swatch that was actually put on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: Because you want them to be as identical as possible. The only difference being one will contain the item of interest; the other won't. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 4 on People's 1--excuse me--162 for identification, what phase of the collection procedure is shown here? MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like the cloth swatch is being placed into a small plastic envelope, small plastic bag. The control is placed in one bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now directing your attention to cell no. 5 that says "Clean tweezers"-- excuse me. I'm sorry. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 5, that says "Clean tweezers" in our demonstration? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. After the control is taken, the tweezers are cleaned with distilled water and a chem wipe, which is like a laboratory Kleenex. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 6, which says on our board "Take new swatch, then dampen it," what does this phase of the collection procedure involve? MS. MAZZOLA: Our swatches are stored in plastic tubes so you have to take a small selection of them out of the tube without handling them and then you can select the correct size that you need, so that is what is being shown. MR. GOLDBERG: How do you decide which size to take? MS. MAZZOLA: It depends on the size of the stain. You want to select a size swatch that is small enough that--so when you apply it to the stain you would get it as concentrated as possible. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular photograph it is kind of hard for me to see that there are actually swatches in that little bottle, but is that what you are saying? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: The swatches come from that bottle? MS. MAZZOLA: That's right. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's take a look at cell no. 7 that says "Collect stain" and "Number card removed" is in parentheses. What are you doing here? MS. MAZZOLA: That would be the actual collection of the stain. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have to dampen the swatch before you-- MS. MAZZOLA: Right, the same as with the control. You dampen the swatch, shake off the excess water, then you apply the swatch to the stain. MR. GOLDBERG: And finally taking a look at cell no. 8 that says, "Package stain in same envelope with substrate control," what is involved in this procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: The swatch with the stain is placed in a separate plastic envelope. Both the control and the swatch with the item you are interested in are placed in the same coin envelope with the item number written on the outside. MR. GOLDBERG: Now when you are--thank you. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you are collecting one of these stains, do you collect one stain at a time? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And I want to ask you some questions about different things that could happen when you are collecting a stain. Do you--do you ever drop the tweezers while you are doing that? MS. MAZZOLA: That can happen. MR. GOLDBERG: What happens if you do that? MS. MAZZOLA: You clean them all over again. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are taking a swatch that actually has blood on it, do you ever drop that bloody swatch? MS. MAZZOLA: That has never happened to me. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are pouring the--maybe pouring is not the right word, but you are taking some of those little swatches out of the container, the little pill bottle-- MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --do those swatches ever fall? MS. MAZZOLA: They do occasionally, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with those swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't use them. MR. GOLDBERG: Could you use them as substrate controls? MS. MAZZOLA: You could. MR. GOLDBERG: But you do not do that? MS. MAZZOLA: But I personally don't do that. MR. GOLDBERG: So you just throw them away? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are picking up a swatch, do any of the swatches ever stick together? MS. MAZZOLA: That happens sometimes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What do you do in that kind of instance? MS. MAZZOLA: If you are taking either the control or the actual item, you can use both swatches. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what if you have two swatches stuck together? Do you try to separate them or is it possible that you could apply both of them to the stain at the same time, without knowing it? MS. MAZZOLA: You can tell if two of them are stuck together. Umm, you separate them and you--you use one swatch at a time, either to pick up the control or to pick up the stain itself. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the labeling of the coin envelopes? Have you ever mislabeled one of those by writing the wrong item number? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. When are they--when are the envelopes labeled in relationship to when the collection takes place? Before-- MS. MAZZOLA: The envelopes were labeled before. MR. GOLDBERG: So do you put the--if you are collecting stain no. 5, for example-- MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --in our demonstration, you are going to put that in an envelope that is labeled what? MS. MAZZOLA: No. 5. MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be done before you moved on to no. 6? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location did you place your initials on all the coin envelopes as you were collecting them? MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I did. Looking back I apparently didn't. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall testifying at what we've been referring to or sometimes referred to as a griffin hearing on August 23, I believe, of 1994? MS. MAZZOLA: I remember testifying at the griffin hearing. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that--when you were testifying at that hearing at that time, did you believe that you had put all of your initials or your initials on all of the items that you had collected on the 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believe I had. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you since learn that you did not? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. NEUFELD: Objection. What she assumes is hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you since look at photographs of some of the items collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And have you learned that you did not? MS. MAZZOLA: I learned I had not. MR. GOLDBERG: On the other scenes that you had processed-- MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Move to strike the last answer. It is conclusionary as opposed to testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the other stains--excuse me--other scenes that you had collected stains on prior to the 13th, had you initialed on those occasions? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't that done here at the scene? MS. MAZZOLA: I was told that there were only two of us that-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what she was told. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Without telling us what was said, was there a conversation about this? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And after the conversation did--was there some conclusion that was arrived at? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the conclusion? MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: What is the basis? MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay again. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: There were only going to be two of us at the scenes collecting evidence. We were working as a team, so it really didn't matter if our initials were on the envelopes since we were working as a team. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the crime scene identification checklist that we talked a little bit about, when you testified at the griffin hearing, what was your understanding of how that checklist was supposed to be used? MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that everything had to be filled out. The other scenes that I had gone on they had filled out the checklist. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can see a portion. I think it is 1107. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a look at the last page of the exhibit. It is 1107 for identification. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what page number is that? They are numbered at the top. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Page 2 of 2. MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it has a number. It is the one that has 17, 18 and 19. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOLDBERG: Or 18, 17 and 19. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Is this the form that you use out in the field when you are collecting evidence? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: It is a little blurry there. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, prior to testifying at the griffin hearing did you believe that every single box in every single column needed to be filled out? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of your training and experience after the griffin hearing, did you learn something different? MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that this is a general guideline for us. Some of the boxes really don't apply to us at the scene. MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start--when did you learn that? MS. MAZZOLA: Right after I testified at the griffin hearing. MR. GOLDBERG: And got back to the laboratory? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the time column, have you noticed now, based upon the experience that you have to date, that different criminalists in the Los Angeles Police Department have different practices with respect to how they fill out that column? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And how is that used? MS. MAZZOLA: Some fill out every single individual time that something is collected. Others put a starting time that they start collecting evidence and an ending time when they stop. Everything that is collected is collected while you are at the scene, so it happens between those two times. MR. GOLDBERG: And then are there some people that use what I guess you might call an intermediate type usage of that time column and put in some times, as you did on the 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question. MR. GOLDBERG: Are there some people that use an intermediate technique? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, getting back to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, perhaps we can take a look at People's 120 for identification. It is the board of Rockingham, the outside stains. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to People's 120 for identification, do you recognize what is depicted here? MS. MAZZOLA: That is not showing up. MR. GOLDBERG: It is not going to be on the monitor. Maybe you can just step down for a moment and take a look at this. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. Yes, I recognize it. MR. GOLDBERG: And are these photographs that depict various items that you participated in collecting on the 13th at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. NEUFELD: Yes. THE COURT: Overruled. May we have a side bar, your Honor? THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were doing the physical collection on these, do you recall what order they were done in? Were they done in numerical order? MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And would that mean that you started with the stains that are down towards the gate? MS. MAZZOLA: The first stain that was collected was on--excuse me--on the door of the Bronco. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who physically collected that? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know who physically collected that. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. MS. MAZZOLA: Excuse me. I was the one who collected the one on the Bronco. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains that are leading from the Bronco into the driveway area, did you and Dennis Fung physically collect those-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to her and Dennis Fung. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you tell us, when you first started the collection, can you be more specific as to who was doing what in terms of the physical collection? MS. MAZZOLA: As I said, I was the one that collected the stain offer the Bronco, and Mr. Fung collected the stain on the street. When we got to the driveway, he did, I believe it was like the first two stains, and I took over from there and was the one who physically collected the rest. MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the other stains, do you have a recollection of whether he physically participated in collecting any of those? MS. MAZZOLA: He was present for some. MR. GOLDBERG: So at the beginning of the stains he was doing more of the physical collection and then towards the end less? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the first phase of the collection procedure, the documentation, the numbering and the measuring phase, how did the two of you work together to accomplish that? MS. MAZZOLA: We worked as a team. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the stains at the end of the outdoor area, stain no. 7 and stain no. 8, do you recall where Dennis Fung was around the time that those were collected? MS. MAZZOLA: At first he was not present, but as I kept working, he came up. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether anyone else was present at the time those stains were collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: In the immediate area? MS. MAZZOLA: There was someone in the immediate area. MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that? MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson. MR. GOLDBERG: Who is he? MS. MAZZOLA: He is the assistant lab director. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where Dennis Fung was at the time that he was not present? MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't. MR. GOLDBERG: Where he went? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: But he went somewhere and at some point came back? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains at the Rockingham location, were--was every single last stain collected or were there some that were not collected? MS. MAZZOLA: There were some that were not collected. MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your training with respect to the need to collect every stain as opposed to less than all the stains? MS. MAZZOLA: Well, on a trail you want to get a representative sample, you want to get the first few stains, you want to pick up the last few stains. The ones in between, as long as they appear to be going in the general direction, there is nothing out of the ordinary with them, not every single stain has to be collected. MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the technique that you and Mr. Fung used with respect to collecting these stains? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: All right--you can--I want to ask you some questions that you may have to refer to your crime scene identification checklist for, so you may want to return to the stand. MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, are you going to refer back to this exhibit, People's 120, for a minute. MR. GOLDBERG: I want to talk about stains, unless logistically we can't do that. THE COURT: Well, if you are going to be referring to it, proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the stains numbered 4 through 6 on our diagram, with the photo i.d. Numbers, 4 through 6, down towards the beginning portion of the driveway, can you tell us the time frame that those stains were collected? MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. The record should reflect that the witness is refreshing her recollection from some notes. May I approach the witness and see? THE COURT: You may. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, what are you referring to? MS. MAZZOLA: I'm referring to the crime scene notes. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed. MS. MAZZOLA: They were collected around nine o'clock, all within a few minutes of each other. MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the stains that are up towards the--close to the entrance area, stain no. 7, stain no. 8, what was the time frame of those stains? MS. MAZZOLA: Those were approximately ten to fifteen minutes later. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have some time frames in your crime scene identification checklist to give us? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 7 was collected approximately 9:10. Item 8, approximately fifteen minutes later. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when you were at the location, from what you saw of all of the stains, did any of them appear to have been stepped in? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, before--I can take this down now, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. (Brief pause.) THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, why don't you swing that around. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left the Rockingham location, did you and Mr. Fung do any--go through any process in terms of double-checking the evidence that you had? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: What was that? MS. MAZZOLA: We knew what item numbers we collected. We look at each individual item to make sure that we had everything. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that a routine thing that you have done on the other crime scenes that you were on before this? MS. MAZZOLA: At the other crime scenes we make sure that we have everything that we collected. MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do with the various coin envelopes that you had with the biological evidence of them--in them? MS. MAZZOLA: They were put in a small paper bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether they were lying down or standing up? MS. MAZZOLA: They were standing up. MR. GOLDBERG: And what was done with the paper bag? MS. MAZZOLA: The paper bag was put into the back of the crime scene truck. MR. GOLDBERG: Was the crime scene truck locked? MS. MAZZOLA: All the time. MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time was it that you left the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately ten o'clock, somewhere around there. MR. GOLDBERG: Were you wearing gloves during the collection procedure of the biological evidence at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know whether you were wearing the same pair of gloves the whole time? MS. MAZZOLA: I probably changed gloves. I don't remember how many times, but-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, speculative. She said "I probably," and move to strike the answer. THE COURT: Strained. Rephrase the question. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the last answer and question. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice? MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves. MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you-- do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what do you do with the gloves that you are wearing at the time that you leave the Rockingham location? Do you keep them on? MS. MAZZOLA: No. We take a paper bag which we label "Trash" and any trash that we generate, whether it is used gloves, swabs, chem wipes, anything, goes into this bag and we take it with us. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after you left the Rockingham location where did you go? MS. MAZZOLA: We went to Bundy.
Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995 In this section Dennis Fung clearly identified Item 13 as the magic socks. Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, I AM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 169 AND IS ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE." DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT NUMBER THAT SAYS 14, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? WHAT AREA OF THE RESIDENCE DOES THAT SHOW? A: THAT IS IN THE MASTER BATH -- BATHROOM. Q: SO THAT WOULD BE DEPICTING THE UPSTAIRS OF THE HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO ITEM 14 SHOW? A: THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA DISPLAYING THE RESULTS OF A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT IS A CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE STAIN HERE (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA THAT'S JUST TO THE RIGHT ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OR SO FROM THE CARD? A: YES. Q: AND IS THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TO THE LEFT SIMPLY A PERSPECTIVE SHOT DEMONSTRATING THE SAME GENERAL THING? A: YES. Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEM CALL OUT NO. 13, WHAT GENERAL AREA IS BEING POINTED TO THERE WITH THAT CALL OUT LINE? A: THAT IS THE MASTER BEDROOM. Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THAT CALL OUT LINE? WHAT DO THOSE SHOW? A: THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A PAIR OF DARK COLORED SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG. Q: THOSE ARE THE SOCKS THAT YOU RECOVERED AND LISTED AS ITEM 13? A: YES. Q: AND NOW TO FINALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT LINE THAT SAYS 12, WHAT GENERAL AREA OF THE HOUSE IS THAT POINTING TO? A: THAT IS -- WELL, THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE FOYER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE, AND THERE ARE THREE LARGE STAINS ON THE FLOOR. THAT IS A -- A CLOSE-UP OF THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT PICTURE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995 In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected. MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure? MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no. MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first? MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first. MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure? MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure. MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain? MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40. MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately? MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame? MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me.
I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.
You just donot want to engage on when the magic socks were collected. Dennis Fung, 11 April 1995, Cross examination by Barry Scheck Note that Fung testifies to the collection of Item 12, downstairs, at 4:30 or thereabouts, recorded as 4:30, before he and Mazzola proceeded upstairs to continue collecting evidence, the first piece of evidence collected upstairs being Item 13, the socks, at an unrecorded time, and then Item 14 recorded at 4:40. A: YES. Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 -MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON? A: YES. Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS? A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE? A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30? A: YES. Q: AND - A: OR THEREABOUTS. Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS? A: YES. Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM? A: YES. Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40? A: YES. Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40? A: ABOUT THEN, YES. Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05? A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK.
OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point?
[misterwhite #299] Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond. [misterwhite #300] OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point? Very well, I will proceed consistent withy your representation that you have read all the testimony, and the socks were collected between 16:30 and 16:40. Fung and Mazzola testified that they collected Item #12 downstairs at 4:30, before proceeding upstairs. Where were the magic socks at 4:13? That's fifteen to twenty-five minutes before Fung went upstairs, discovered the black socks on the white carpet in the master bedroom, and collected them. The collection time is very relevant. The videographer clearly testified that the socks were not there when he walked across the carpet, stood at the foot of the bed, and videoed the master bedroom at 4:13 p.m., according to the auto time record of his video recording. He also testified that he left the location at 4:30 p.m. as verified by the crime scene log maintained by the police. The magic socks were not there for videographer Willie Ford at 4:13, but for Mr. Fung between 4:30 and 4:40, they appeared. When they appeared, they contained an impossible amount of EDTA for circulating blood in a human, and there was a compression stain that went from one outer surface to the inner surface to the opposite inner surface to the opposite outer surface. It could not have been done with a foot in the sock, or by blood spatter. The socks were a great help for the defense, not the prosecution. Sanction hearings for discovery failure regarding the tape were held on 3/31, 4/3, and 4/4, and the prosecution fairy tale was rejected and they were sanctioned. Also, the tape, and testimony about the tape, were grossly inconsistent with the assertions under oath of Det. Vanatter to claim probable cause for a June 28 search warrant to seize the pair of gloves that had been found and allegedly inadvertently left at Rockingham. Willie Ford, 19 July 1995, reviewing the videotape he recorded at Rockingham. (advance to 34m 40s) OJ Simpson Trial - July 19th, 1995 - Part 3 (Last part) Willie Ford, 19 July 1995: MR. DARDEN: Is this going to begin at the beginning? May I confer for a moment? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. I wanted to save some time because we're getting close to 4 o'clock. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to start this video at the beginning, and then we'll stop it after I lay a foundation, then go upstairs. Very well. Mr. Harris, thank you. This is, your Honor, for the record exhibit 1068. (At 3:51 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.) MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where this--you see that- MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Harris, back up a little bit. Okay. Let's back it up to the outside. MR. COCHRAN: You see that-- MR. COCHRAN: All right. Stop it there, Mr. Harris. Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see where it says 6-13-94? That was the date; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And where it says 2:13 P.M., that should be 3:13 P.M., right? MR. FORD: Yes. [...] MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this the--do you recognize this as being the stairway leading upstairs to Mr. Simpson's home? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And that would be about 4:08 P.M. on June 13th, 1994? MR. FORD: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was shot by you; isn't that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And this was one of the bedrooms, the children's bedrooms at the location? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're now entering—it's about 4:13 P.M. you're now entering—is this Mr. Simpson's bedroom area? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you took a photograph of a blanket there and an easy chair? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You continued on in that room. And you walked into this room; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you remember seeing this couch in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Remember the fireplace in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Now, stop right there. MR. COCHRAN: You stood right in that room; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you shot toward the fireplace at that time; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's bed was to the right; was it not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: About 4:13 in the afternoon; is that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You walked in that room--you see that--stop again. You took a photograph of something on top of the bed, is that correct, that was out? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: What are those? Do you remember what those were? MR. FORD: It looked to me like belt or tie. MR. COCHRAN: Maybe suspenders or something like that? MR. FORD: Maybe. MR. COCHRAN: All right. It was something on top of the bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you shot that, did you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now- MR. COCHRAN: Back up a little bit. MR. COCHRAN: You continued to shoot, did you, now? MR. FORD: This is going forward. You said back up? MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Well, he's going- MR. COCHRAN: Go ahead and back it up. All right. Stop it there. MR. COCHRAN: You see that carpet there or that rug right in front of the bed? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You saw that rug that particular day; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, you walked past that rug when you went into the other room, into the bathroom area, didn't you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Any socks on that rug that day, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: You didn't videotape any and there were none there; is that correct? MR. FORD: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: It's 4:13 P.M., about that time on June 13th, 1994 that you walked through there, right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And if there had been socks there, you would have taken photographs of them or video, correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can move it on, please. MR. COCHRAN: There's another shot. Now, you're basically--you're shooting from the foot of that bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you're right on that particular--that rug or carpet there; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: The foot of the bed. You didn't see any socks or anything else there, did you? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: Then from that point- MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. MR. COCHRAN: From that point, you went on into an alcove area where there's kind of bureau I guess we can call it? A vanity I think you'd call it. MR. FORD: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dean Uelman at Sanctions Hearing, 4 April 1995 "YOUR AFFIANT WISHES TO SEIZE THE GLOVES LEFT IN THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL TEND TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT THE BLOODY GLOVES RECOVERED BELONGED TO SIMPSON IN THAT HE FAVORED THIS TYPE, STYLE AND SIZE OF GLOVE. "THESE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE." NOW, WE BELIEVE THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION, BOTH OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN FINDING THAT GLOVE, WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS SECOND WARRANT IN THAT THE VIDEOTAPE REVEALS ONE GLOVE WHEREAS THE AFFIDAVIT REFERS TO A PAIR OF GLOVES. THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND WHEN WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT THE DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO SEIZE THE GLOVE. IT WAS NOT AN INADVERTENT LEAVING BEHIND. THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED BEFORE THEY LEFT THE PREMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THIS GLOVE OR THESE GLOVES, IF THERE ARE TWO.
Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time. Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it? Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline. You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel. Zip. Zero. Nada. Just your own commentary. The first item collected inside the house was at 4:30. Ms. Mazzola testified about what she was doing between 3:40 and 4:30. There was no time to do the inspection after the evidence collection upstairs. Items 15 and 16 were collected downstairs at about 5:00. At 5:11, a video shows Fung and Mazzola putting items in the truck in preparation for leaving. [Mazzola testimony 20 Apr 1995] [Mazzola testimony, 28 Apr 1995]
No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial.
No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time. Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it? Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline. You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony. misterwhite posted on 2017-07-04 10:07:57 ET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Same old, same old. You bitch when I have not yet gotten around to posting the testimony of Bert Luper, and then you bitch when I post it, pointing out that his testimony was hilariously absurd. You have claimed to have read all the testimony. And now you claim I have posted the entire trial. Since you have never watched or read the testimony, it is my pleasure to inform you that the trial transcript is about 20,000 pages. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty. You want more cowbell? I'll give you more cowbell. Los Angeles, California; Tuesday, April 25, 1995 1:30 P.M. (Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.) MR. GOLDBERG: It is about-- (Brief pause.) THE COURT: Turn the sound up. (The videotape continues playing.) THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg. And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs. The jury did not get treated to Goldman's audio track, but they got Neufeld and Mazzola doing a stop action review of the tape. It would be a daunting task to count the number of goofs. As well, the admissions of the lack of supervision, training and procedures was telling. And Mazzola collected almost every drop of blood at Bundy and Rockingham. Neufeld firmly established the problems endemic to the LAPD crime lab and its criminalists. Well, that was entertaining and educational about the LAPD criminalists. Just on that day alone, there are another 100 pages equaling and exceeding it. When you doubt the LAPD could contaminate the evidence, let them made a demonstration tape showing off their collection procedure. And let a prosecutor add an audio track.
ON A DEMONSTRATION TAPE, for crying out loud. "MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?" What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test.
What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test. After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive. When using one swab for multiple items, it is impossible to use a meaningful negative control. And, instructions for the pheno test explicitly inform one not to use a swab to test more than one item. [...] MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items? It was a problem in followup questioning on 27 April 1995 The prosecutors should learn to make up better b.s. stories. As brought out by Peter Neufeld, such a test is useless to establish whether anyone drove the car rather than just got in and back out. If there were blood only on the emergency brake, but not on either the accelerator or brake pedal, how would it prove somebody drove the car? It was a big problem when Peter Neufeld played the tape for the jury and questioned Andrea Mazzola, the sometimes unsupervised trainee who was the primary collector of the blood drops at Bundy and Rockingham. A prosecution expert, demonstrating to the jury that she did not know what she was doing, is a problem for the prosecution. Demonstrating that the prosecution was playing hide-the-ball is another problem. MAZZOLA, testimony 25 April 1995, VIDEO [...] MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, aside from Mr. Goldberg being present and a still photographer and a video photographer, were there other people present? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, again calling your attention to collecting a stain demonstration board with the still photographs on it, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that the still photographs depicted--shown on this board, because they are still photographs, don't capture the continuous motion involved in the entire process of bloodstain collection? [...] MR. NEUFELD: What was your understanding--when you were engaged in this demonstration for the District Attorney and the videocamera is rolling, what is your understanding of what the purpose of this videotape was going to be? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg or any Prosecutor ever tell you that it was important to convey to this jury how simple crime scene--I'm sorry--bloodstain collection is? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, during your prep sessions with Mr. Goldberg, did he tell you that there was a chance that this videotape might be played for the jury? [...] MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, was one of the questions that you discussed during those prep sessions a question involving you dropping swatches during a crime scene collection? (Deft's 1117 for id = videotape) THE COURT: Proceed. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I've never done this before in front of the jury. So there may be a couple of times where I ask to go back and slow it down and please indulge me a little bit. (At 3:29 P.M., People's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.) MR. NEUFELD: Stop it a second. (Deft's 1117-A for id = printout) MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, just before this shot where you put the right hand down on the dirty ground, did you clean the tweezers? [...] MR. NEUFELD: All right. And the same hand that you're using to catch that swatch at that point, if that's what you could have been doing, is the same right hand that you had just put down on the dirty ground; is that correct? MR. NEUFELD: Hold it one second, please. (Briefpause.) (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Could you just back up about--back up. Go a little more. Okay. Now go forward a little bit. [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now you're pouring more swatches out of the bottle, correct? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you made this demonstration tape, were you aware of the fact that your right hand had been resting on the dirty concrete? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now that you see the control swatch just as it's about to hit the control area next to stain no. 5, would you agree that the discoloration we saw later on when you're actually about to lift the bloodstain is moisture from the control swatch? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, can you see that the moisture has spread out from the control swatch so it is in fact touching the blood drop stain? [...] MR. NEUFELD: When you received your instruction on how to collect bloodstain evidence, although you were taught to collect a control close to the bloodstain, you were also taught, Miss Mazzola, not to allow the moisture from the control swatch to come into contact with the bloodstain; isn't that correct? [...] MR. NEUFELD: And you're putting it in the coin envelope now? (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Just back up a second, please. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: And there are more swatches that have dropped to the ground again, haven't there? [...] MR. NEUFELD: See the moisture moving out from the control swatch, Miss Mazzola? [...] MR. NEUFELD: Dropped other swatches there, Miss Mazzola; is that correct? (At 4:16 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.) MR. NEUFELD: One of the procedures that you have been taught at LAPD was to put some scale in the photograph such as a tape--such as a ruler to indicate the size of the actual bloodstain, correct? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, how many crime scenes have you collected bloodstains at since June 13th, 1994? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you came back to Rockingham later in the afternoon on the 13th, the first item of evidence that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right? (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you receive a handout from the SID unit entitled, "Collection and preservation of body fluids"? Do you have it? (Deft's 1118 for id = handout) MR. NEUFELD: Show you this, ask you to take a look at item no. 13. (Briefpause.) MR. NEUFELD: But you would agree, ma'am, that there were at least a few drops in that foyer area where you collected no. 12? [...] MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, before that you can't tell whether or not this trail of blood drops at Rockingham is leading from the house to the Bronco or from the Bronco to the house; isn't that correct? [...] (Deft's 1119 for id = photograph) [...] MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize that photograph?
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.
Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can. Mozzola only used swab "A". Mozzola collected no substrate control. If there was a positive result, there is no way of telling whether A, B, or C indicated the possibility of the presence of blood. With no substrate control, there is no way of telling if one of the combined items contained beet juice and would have tested positive using distilled water on an area outside any stain. What you've got is squat. I was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminalists did not know what they were doing, or didn't care, and not much else.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible. It makes an anonymous blood sample. Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so. 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.
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".
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.
Item #15 -- Airline ticket receipt As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES?? The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case. So, are you saying OJ's blood crawled out of the sealed vial, out of the sealed envelope and, what, got all over the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag (even though there was no blood on the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag)? You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance.
[...] You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance. Here ya go, sunshine. I will point out the significance. The detective who took the blood home overnight. The story of carrying the envelope out to the van died with the videotape. Nobody could carry it in their hand without it being seen. The trash bag story was a last, desperate grope. It is the sort of silly bullshit story that accompanied every piece of bullshit evidence in the case. It is the sort of fairy tale that loses juries. What happened to your plastic baggie and coin envelope that were locked up in the truck? Vannatter was a proven liar with no credibility. The jury so found. The evidence of Vannatter's lies was so apparent that none but the willfully ignorant could deny it. Still, even privately, Vannatter's only answer to why, in his twenty-five years as a cop, working many big cases, this was the first time he had ever done anything like this is "I don't know. I just don't know, all right!" Forget the baloney being peddled by Vannatter's high visibility apologist, Vincent Bugliosi, that since Vannatter didn't know the reference number to book it under, it would've messed up Dennis Fung's numbering system. If that was reasonable, why has nothing like this ever happened before? Everyone from the police chief on down has said that it was against procedure and precedent. Joseph Bosco, A Problem With Evidence, 1st ed., pg. 74-75. The story is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a two-digit IQ. As for the contaminated blood samples, that was proven through Collin Yamauchi and John Gerdes. The reference samples of Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with OJ's DNA. Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, pbk, 569-70: Yamauchi had worked with O.J.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J.'s vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove. The swatches collected from the Bundy walkway placed O.J. at the crime scene more convincingly than any eyewitness. The defense had to show that somewhere, somehow, by accident, by design, or both, Simpson's reference blood was transferred to the Bundy swatches. During the first two weeks in May, Barry went through all of Yamauchi's notes in the discovery material with a finetoothed comb. Months earlier, Bill Pavelic had shown the team a photograph in which the outside of Simpson's reference vial was stained, even caked, with blood. Beyond a doubt, that vial had been carelessly handled. That was Scheck's starting point. Scheck wanted to determine the sequence of events in the lab on June 14. The LAPD would not allow the defense to interview Yamauchi, but after days of shuffling and reshuffling. Barry assigned what seemed to be the correct order to Yamauchi's notes, some of which bore no dates. Yamauchi had worked with OJ.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J. 's vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove. Then Scheck worked out from the lab notes the order in which Yamauchi handled the Bundy blood swatches. Scheck compared that order to the amount of Simpson's DNA found on each sample. Paydirt. For the first time Scheck and his team could see that the Bundy swatch with the largest quantity of O.J. 's DNA, swatch number 51, was the first one that Yamauchi touched after he handled the Rockingham glove. The swatch containing the second-highest quantity was the second one he touched. And so forth. Common sense indicated that Yamauchi had to have gotten some of Simpson's blood on his own glove, or on the table, or both. It was like stepping into a mud puddle, then continuing onto dry ground. Your first footprint leaves a lot of mud; the next one leaves a bit less; the third leaves still less. Scheck could see Yamauchi's "footprint" on the glove and Bundy blood swatches. The sequence was clear: Yamauchi gets O.J.'s reference blood on his gloved hands. Maybe on his worktable. Then he transfers O.J.'s blood to the Rockingham glove. Next he handles the Bundy swatches and contaminates them with Simpson's blood. Scheck knew this was a bombshell. Top Secret-Eyes Only. But there was also blood from someone on the swatches before Yamauchi ever touched them. What about the original DNA in the blood on the Bundy swatches? The jury already had that answer, but it hadn't been explained to them yet. When Fung left those swatches in the hot van all day, Scheck would argue, the original DNA, possibly the killer's, had degraded so much that it no longer showed up in testing. The tide was now shifting in favor of the defense. Barry's theory that O.J.'s DNA was unwittingly transferred to the swatches by Yamauchi stood up to scrutiny. It was scientifically valid. It also reinforced the defense's assertion that the first PCR test results that incriminated Simpson were unreliable, like everything else that came from the LAPD's "Black Hole." Johnnie and Carl didn't have to stretch their imaginations to believe that those first tests might have given some cops the impetus to plant, fabricate, or doctor other evidence. This guy's guilty. Don't let him get away with it. Make it stick. The only question left was: What exactly happened to O.J.'s reference blood on June 14, the day Yamauchi worked on the glove and the Bundy swatches? Scheck would have to get his answer in his cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Collin Yamauchi cross-examination by Barry Scheck - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. John GERDES, Direct by Barry Scheck - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, we discussed cross-contamination. Is there something about cross-contamination that is a particular problem in terms of the different kinds contamination you get? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Have you heard the testimony or are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi, Mr. Matheson, that this hood is a laminar flow hood? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi as to what he did on the morning of June 14th, starting at around 9:00 A.M. through 11:20 A.M. when he processed the reference sample of Mr. Simpson, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52? [...] MR. SCHECK: Well, assumes facts not in evidence. In your opinion, sir, in terms of the handling of samples in a DNA laboratory, are there problems when one is handling degraded samples with low amounts or no DNA at the same time or period or location when handling samples with high contents of DNA. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with--do you know, according to their protocol--withdrawn. Let's get back to LAPD. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi that at about nine o'clock-well, let's take care of all foundation items. Are you familiar with the serology item description notes which are 1185, I have shown them to Mr. Clarke, of Mr. Yamauchi for June 14th and June 15th, his notes of handling the samples? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Took samples? And then moved on to do the so-called Bundy blood drop items, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52? Are you familiar with that? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall that section of Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where he describes that he opened Mr. Simpson's reference sample and blood came out of the tube that went through the chem wipe and onto his glove? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to have proceeded from handling the reference sample under the circumstances described by Mr. Yamauchi and turn to manipulation of the wrist area of the glove in the fashion that he described? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to handle in the same period in the same location samples that have high DNA content and low DNA content? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. You've heard the testimony about how Mr. Yamauchi sampled and then proceeded to test on June 14th twenty individual samples? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, as a microbiologist and DNA laboratory director do you believe that analysts handling blood samples should routinely change their gloves between handling each item? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of laboratory paper, are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola that when the samples were brought into the LAPD laboratory and they were taken out of the plastic bags and put into the test-tubes that they did not change laboratory paper between handling those items? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: We've heard some questions being asked in this trial such as you heard them, "Can DNA fly?" Have you heard that? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with Mr. Yamauchi's testimony that in processing the Rockingham glove and the LAPD items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 on the morning of June 14th, that he did not routinely change laboratory paper between those items? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Dr. Gerdes, let's return for a minute to 1306, the chelex bottle. Now, what role does chelex play in the DNA process? How do you use--how was it used at the Los Angeles Police Department and at other laboratories in the DNA testing process? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: This is 1307. What is this a picture of, Dr. Gerdes? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Let me get back to it this way. In terms of the--in your review of the LAPD laboratory strips in terms of contamination, what is the significance of the degree of contamination you found in the extraction control versus the amplification control? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, besides your view that--about the substrate--your views about the substrate controls being handled in parallel, the fact that negative controls don't always clean negative controls don't always indicate contamination and the notion of "Carrier," do you have any evidence from review of the data that indicates that there was cross-contamination of DNA between samples handled by Mr. Yamauchi in this case? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Gerdes, are you familiar with the fact that on June 15th, 1994 at the evidence processing room and at the serology lab, Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12, blood drops recovered from the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home and the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson and the reference sample from Ronald Goldman? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's reference sample, the LAPD records there a 1.3, 4; and is the term very faint 1.1 what's on their record? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Okay. So from looking here at the LAPD typing sheet--now, with respect to item no. 12, is it your understanding, sir, that item no. 12 were--drops in Mr. Simpson's foyer that were the last blood drops collected on June 13? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know if Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12 in the same time and location that he handled the reference samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman on June 15th? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. What did these results indicate to you? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: But what about the 1.2 dot on Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample? Is that an artifact or contaminant? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's move to the next typing of reference samples of Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman. That was done at Cellmark on August 5th, 1994? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, was there, however--what is the significance of the faint b recorded on the polymarker system for Nicole Brown Simpson? [...] MR. SCHECK: All right. The b in terms of the polymarker system, is that a contaminant or an artifact? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Let's move on to the next time the reference samples were typed at the Department of Justice. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. In your opinion, based on the principles of the DQ-Alpha system as you understand it, what does the appearance of that 1. Dot indicate? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: What in your opinion is the significance of this pattern of typings? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Well, what would the b in the polymarker system have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD, but another explanation? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: I have some additional questions now about RFLP results. I believe you gave us yesterday, concerning your views of the RFLP result on LAPD item 52 and—which was analyzed on the morning of June 14th by Mr. Yamauchi, correct? - - - - - - - - - -
Moving on, OJ Trial - Garbage In, Garbage Out Instruction to the jury by Judge Ito. Evidence of the comparison of blood drops allegedly found on the 'walkways and driveways of the Bundy crime scene with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood drops allegedly found at the crime scene were deposited by the perpetrator of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine this fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that the alleged blood drops may have been deposited at some other time, however, you must disregard this evidence and not con: ider it for any purpose SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D3 “Evidence of the comparison of blood which was not discovered on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene until July 3, 1994, and of blood which was not discovered on a sock allegedly found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom until August 4, 1994 with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson and a blood sample recovered from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood found on the back gate and the sock was deposited by the perpetrator or victim of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine such fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it, tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that blood may have been deposited on the back gate or socks at some time subsequent to June 12, 1994, however, you must disregard this evidence and not consider it for any purpose.” - - - - - - - - - - Lawrence Schiller (American Tragedy, paperback, 388-89) described the prep menu of Barry Scheck, [...] It's very easy to contaminate blood samples under the best of conditions in a medical laboratory," Scheck said. Then in PCR testing, you amplify the wrong DNA. [...] We will show," Scheck said grandly, "that the LAPD laboratory is a cesspool on PCR contamination. We'll demonstratethey had no special procedures for collection and handling of biological evidence. And we will show they broke the few rules they had for whatever whatever kind of test was going to be used." Scheck, Neufeld and Blasier succeeded in accomplishing that task. Criminalists Fung and Mazzola were destroyed on the stand. Special Agent Martz was destroyed by a leading EDTA scientist, Dr. Rieders. - - - - - - - - - - Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The O.J. Files, Evidentiary Issues in a Tactical Context, American Casebook Series, West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 1998, at 37-38. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/the-five-lessons-of-the-oj-trial/ The incredible sensitivity of new testing regimens brings with it a greatly enhanced risk of human error. At the outset of the trial, Clark told the jury that collecting specimens for blood testing was as easy as mopping up your kitchen with a sponge. Apparently, the LAPD. actually believes that. Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The Five Hardest Lessons from the O.J. Trial, originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 7, N. 1 Winter 1996. - - - - - - - - - - Criminalist Andrea Mazzola was the primary collector of blood evidence and criminalist Dennis Fung only collected about two items. The examination by Peter Neufeld documented and demonstrated that prosecutor Hank Goldberg had used a demonstration board filled with false claims that Fung had participated in collecting items he did not collect at all, including items for which it was shown that he was not even present at the collection to observe. The prosecution was desperate to show that Dennis Fung had participated meaningfully in the collection of the blood evidence. They lied trying. During the testimony of Dennis Fung, the prosecution cast a false light on the participation of Dennis Fung in the collection of evidence. During the subsequent testimony of Andrea Mazzola, the prosecution was embarrassingly outed. Not only was the credibility of Dennis Fung demolished, so was the credibility of Hank Goldberg, and by extension, the prosecution team. During the testimony of Andrea Mazzola, it was clearly shown on video that she put her gloved hands on the dirty ground and then went directly to picking up evidence with her dirty gloved hand. This was a repeated occurrence, demonstrated over and over. Ms. Mazzola also knelt on her knees, got up and brushed off the dirt, contaminating her gloved hands, and then directly went to pick up evidence with her dirty gloved hand. Two pieces of evidence were collected with no glove change upon the claim that the pieces were touching and shared the same trace evidence. Photographic evidence proved the items were not touching. Three items were pheno tested with one swab. No substrate control was obtained. The defense established that this was contrary to the mandatory written procedures. The nonsense result was never submitted for confirmation. Luminol testing, as with phenophthalein testing, is presumptive and not admissible to show the presence of blood in the absence of a positive confirmatory test. Luminol testing in the Bronco was excluded from both the criminal and civil trials, as no confirmatory test was performed. The alleged bloody shoeprints in the Bronco were inadmissible as evidence. The jury foreman later wrote, "I had problems understanding how they found the blood smears on the console of the Bronco. Why were they seen after they had torn the inside of this car completely up?" The blood stains, purportedly in plain sight, were not discovered in multiple examinations of the Bronco, and then, suddenly, they were there.
Well, that's a lie. Detective Tom Lange testified that he saw it that night and ordered it collected. "The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it." That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface.
That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface. Your bullshit is refuted by world experts. If you have evidence that Drs. Herbert MacDonnell and Henry Lee were lying in their testimony, bring it. Gary Sims, of the California DOJ, testified that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried. Dr. Henry Lee observed the tell-tale little red balls, pointed them out to Dr. Herbert MacDonnell who then also observed them, and Dr. Henry Lee photographed the scientific proof that these microscopic little red balls, that appeared to be blood, had penetrated to surface 3. If the blood was acquired by the sock at the crime scene, it would have dried before the socks could have been deposited at Rockingham. Moreover, it was impossible for your bullshit to have created a compression transfer. The blood was pressed in with a certain pressure. It was not a mere contact transfer. The blood was pressed into surface 1 and through to surface 3. It could have included some slight swiping motion. What you describe is impossible based on the scientific evidence. It could not be from mere contact or from dripping blood. The blood could not possibly have just soaked through to surface 3. If the blood was pressed into the sock by a hand, it was done by one finger only. The scientific evidence on this was conclusive, Dr. MacDonell and Dr. Lee were in agreement, and they brought the photographic evidence to back it up. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Herbert MacDONNELL, renowned expert on blood spatter analysis. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Henry Lee, world renowned criminalist. The Connecticut state crime lab run by Dr. Henry Lee was ranked #1 in the nation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, before we get to this board entitled, "History of the socks, item 13, February 16, 1995 examination at LAPD lab," I would like to put on the board a Prosecution exhibit which is 285 entitled, "Henry Lee's sock examination." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And this is another one of those examples of something where a leading forensic scientist or a number of forensic scientists can look at an item and they just can't provide us with all of the answers; is that correct? - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to the socks, getting back to the socks, is the stain 42-A that we've been talking about-- - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them? - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is it possible, doctor, in your judgment that in the process of taking off the socks, if one was cut and they deposited some of their blood on the toe of the sock and they turned the upper part of the sock inside out, that the toe could come into contact with wall 3, which is now inside out? - - - - - - - - - - THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect that from Deputy Bashmakian, please. All right. Let the record reflect that each of the jurors had the opportunity to carefully review People's 596, the sock photograph. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a picture that's 596 on cross-examination of the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Do you recall that? - - - - - - - - - - DR. LEE: He have a great amount of experience and did lot of experiment in the past, publish a book involving interpretation of the bloodstain analysis. - - - - - - - - - -
Moving on, CA DoJ Gary Sims v. LAPD Colin Yamauchi - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ Superman Collin Yamauchi processed all the samples and gave results with same-day service. Mr. Sims, assisted by Ms. Montgomery, took a week at the California DoJ lab to process less. We're talking the same stuff being retested at Cal DOJ.
Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Geez Louise. That entire exchange was a waste of time. Speculation and innuendo isn't evidence. Is that all you got? If the prosecution pulled such a stunt you'd be screaming "mistrial".
Collin Yamauchi allegedly performed the same tests and a few more with results overnight, while it took the State expert a week. The point was well made that the Yamauchi claim that he did not rush, and performed professionally without risking cross-contamination, was exposed as an absurdity. The jury got the message. Even you got the message. Here it is again with the part you focus on denoted by strike-through. The jury heard the question, and they and everyone else knew the only possible answer. Continue to make believe if you will, it is amusing.
I'll say it again. If the prosecution pulled that stunt you'd be crying 'mistrial'. The only possible answer? What's the question? You're saying there could be cross-contamination. Well. Was there or not? If there was, where's your evidence?
Not only did Dr. John Gerdes testify to the protocols violated by Collin Yamauchi, so did Gary Sims, a prosecution witness from the California DOJ. AEROSOL CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ
Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? No? Next subject.
Yes, actual testimonial affirmative evidence of cross-contamination. I can only post it, but it is evident nothing can make you read it. However I will repeat an excerpt of it from my #368, by scientific expert Dr. John Gerdes. He gave explicit testimony of contaminated reference samples of blood for Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, pbk, 569-70: Testimony of Dr. John Gerdes - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know if Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12 in the same time and location that he handled the reference samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman on June 15th? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. What did these results indicate to you? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: But what about the 1.2 dot on Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample? Is that an artifact or contaminant? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's move to the next typing of reference samples of Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman. That was done at Cellmark on August 5th, 1994? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, was there, however--what is the significance of the faint b recorded on the polymarker system for Nicole Brown Simpson? [...] MR. SCHECK: All right. The b in terms of the polymarker system, is that a contaminant or an artifact?
Any contaminant was trace amount and had zero efect on the analysis.
How can any contaminant with a trace amount not have an effect on the analysis? How is that possible?
The results would show, for example, that the blood belonged to Nicole with a trace amount (<.0001%) of OJ's blood, possibly due to contamination. Contamination would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's. Degradation would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's. Leaving blood samples in a hot car would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's.
And what would those contaminates be composed of exactly? This "Degradation" you discuss, what is that?
In this case it's someone else's DNA (the contaminant) mixing with the DNA sample collected as evidence. Degradation occurs when the DNA starts to break down due to time, exposure to the elements, or heat. You end up with less and less usable DNA to test. But DNA does not transform itself from one person to another.
So provided with this information on how this process actually works, we can actually conclude that the forensics team for the LAPD knew about "time" being that critical factor involved in this DNA breaking down due to heat, (it was in June and it was rather warm at that time but check the weather temperature for that date).
Sure, unless some method was used to keep the samples cool. But keep in mind that the DNA breaking down only served to help OJ. If his DNA was at the crime scene and it degraded to the point where they couldn't tell whose blood it was, he's free and clear. But there was ten times the overall evidence needed to convict. Disregarding a few blood samples here and there would have zero effect on the case.
That's exactly the point!
There are no replies to Comment # 403. End Trace Mode for Comment # 403.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
"Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals."
#14. To: misterwhite (#8)
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:
#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)
"Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms."
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#23)
"You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster."
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.
As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.
Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
#42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28)
"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"
#83. To: misterwhite (#42)
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.
Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
#89. To: nolu chan (#83)
"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."
#94. To: misterwhite (#89)
The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
#106. To: nolu chan (#94)
The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.
#119. To: misterwhite (#106)
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:
1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.
#120. To: nolu chan (#119)
"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."
#186. To: misterwhite (#120)
#188. To: nolu chan (#186)
"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."
#193. To: misterwhite (#188)
By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.
MR. DARDEN: And what was the selling price on December 18, 1990, if you know?
MS. VEMICH: They were $55.00, but during December 18th they were marked down at thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: Could you describe style no. 70263, the Aris Isotoner leather light glove?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. This particular glove has many characteristics that are very distinctive to this type of glove. One of the first characteristics is the leather. The leather is extremely lightweight, almost paper thin, and that was one characteristic. The second was the stitching. The stitching of this glove was called a Brossier stitch which is a very refined whip stitch. [11553]
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That calls for speculation, I suppose.
THE COURT: I think she is an expert.
MS. VEMICH: These gloves were extremely lightweight. The reason they sold, from my experience in waiting on customers, is that they were almost like a second skin. Umm, you could pick up a penny or a needle practically with them and they were very--again they are very, very thin, and many people like that about these gloves and that is why they were called leather light and that is why we marked them leather lights and it was a big seller. It was a big part of my business. [11528]
MS. VEMICH: Yes. That is the retail for the two pair of gloves.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And to the right of the "$77.00" we see the no. "30"; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. And that is thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: So that means in the two pairs of gloves were purchased for thirty percent off at $77.00?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us what the regular price of the gloves was?
MS. VEMICH: The regular price of gloves of this style is $55.00.
MS. VEMICH: There was only one Aris glove that I sold at $55.00.
MR. DARDEN: Was style number was that?
MS. VEMICH: 70263.
MR. DARDEN: And which glove the style number is 70263?
MS. VEMICH: Aris leather light glove.
MR. DARDEN: So the gloves I showed you in court today then fit the descriptions given on this sales receipt?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the style number on the sales receipt indicates 70268; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did Bloomingdales ever sell an Aris glove style no. 70268?
MR. DARDEN: To borrow a phrase, is that a mistake?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Does that mistake--strike that. The mistake is that the "8" should have been a "3"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: What is the mistake?
MS. VEMICH: The last digit should be a "3," not an "8." MR. DARDEN: Has Bloomingdales ever purchased Aris glove style no. 70268?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris style no. 70268 has ever been sold in the United States?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I--I don't know. MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
#209. To: misterwhite (#202)
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
[11607]
Oh, here they are:
[18774]
#213. To: nolu chan (#209)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
#218. To: misterwhite (#213)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
[18773]
#223. To: nolu chan (#218)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
#226. To: misterwhite (#223)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves?
[18773]
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove.
#227. To: nolu chan (#226)
"was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty."
#229. To: misterwhite (#227)
No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored.
[4697]
[4757]
[6758]
[6759]
03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid.
16 I didn't touch it. I went past the air
17 conditioning duct that you can see in photo 'A', and as
18 soon as I went past that air conditioning duct, looking
19 for the person that might have dropped this glove,
20 thinking that they were farther down the walkway, I ran
21 into spider webs immediately. [4141]
[4284]
[4045]
#232. To: nolu chan (#229)
(Edited)
"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."
13 looked a little sticky and moist."
#236. To: misterwhite (#232)
"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."
"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist." Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054:
03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid. [4141]
[4284]
An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.
EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.
HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
#239. To: nolu chan (#236)
and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?
#241. To: misterwhite (#239)
I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.
A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."
A: NO, HE DID NOT.
How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am.
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
"Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?"
MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And first of all, can you tell us, sir, what was the temperature range between approximately ten o'clock in the evening on June 12th, 1994, and 9:30 the morning of June 13th, the approximate--June 13th?
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with this study of drying times?
#242. To: nolu chan (#241)
#244. To: misterwhite (#242)
He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist.
Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course.
Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation.
Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry?
Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
#248. To: nolu chan (#244)
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
#252. To: misterwhite (#248)
I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it.
Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?
Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
Judge Ito: If it is rheumatoid arthritis in his knee or if it is osteoarthritis in his knee, it is still arthritis, and we agree that looking at the railroad tracks on the side of his knee and looking at the number of hits the guy took, he probably has got knee problems. He has got kneemonia.
Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
#255. To: nolu chan (#252)
"Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."
#260. To: misterwhite (#255)
[nolu chan #252] "Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."
[misterwhite #255] He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab.
Items such as damp bloodstained clothing should be allowed to airdry at room temp away from direct sunlight; then the items should be packaged separately an[d] loosely in paper bags.
Wet Bloodstains
Advantages: Requires a minimal amount of interaction with the bloodstains by the investigator; allows the serologist to make the decisions involved in collecting the samples.
A. It is best to not manipulate the evidence and to leave it in as much an undisturbed condition as possible so that it can later be analyzed in a proper setting, back at the laboratory.
Anyone do that with the glove? No?
#266. To: nolu chan (#260)
That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.
#271. To: misterwhite (#266)
That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.
"Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?"
#277. To: nolu chan (#271)
Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.
#281. To: misterwhite (#277)
Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.
18 Now, to ascertain whether there was blood on
19 the glove, you did a presumptive test.
20 A Yes.
21 Q You applied a cotton swatch to the glove?
22 A No, a cotton swab.
23 Q Cotton swab?
24 A Like a Q-tip type of thing.
25 Q All right.
26 What portion of the glove did you apply that 27 swab to?
28 A I believe the -- whatever area was facing
0069
01 upwards, I looked for a dark -- darker area than
02 appeared on the rest of the glove and applied the wet
03 swab to that portion and performed the rest of the test.
04 Q Do you recall where that portion was?
05 A No, I don't.
#283. To: nolu chan (#281)
"Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab."
Cop #2: You're right. It looks shiny, too.
Cop #1: But wait a minute. I'm a detective and I know that blood should be dried by now.
Cop #2: Yeah. I'm a detective, too. That's why they send us to investigate murders.
Cop #1: Well, this is significant. Maybe we should have forensics test the blood.
Cop #2: Nah. We'll just say it "looked" wet.
#288. To: misterwhite (#283)
It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say:
If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, while you were going to the Rockingham location in the truck, was there any conversation with respect to filling out the crime scene identification checklist, the Officer in Charge portion?
MR. GOLDBERG: Using this demonstration board, can you describe for us, starting with the first cell on People's 162, the steps that are involved in collecting a stain?
#289. To: misterwhite (#288)
THE COURT: IT'S A GOOD THING THERE'S NO WIND IN THIS PLACE.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist?
#290. To: nolu chan (#289)
#296. To: misterwhite (#290)
I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.
Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT?
#300. To: nolu chan (#296)
Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?
#307. To: misterwhite (#300)
That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time.
Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Counsel is aware of this, your Honor. This is exhibit 1068, is the videotape. I'd like now to--let me say a word to Mr. Harris before we start, your Honor. I don't want to spend the entire day going all the way through. I want to get right to the important part.
WE HAVE NOTED INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM, AS PORTRAYED IN THE TAPE WHERE A SINGLE GLOVE WAS REMOVED, BROUGHT DOWNSTAIRS, PUT ON A TABLE AND APPEARS IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED TO UNDER OATH BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK ON JUNE 28TH. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID -- AND THIS WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE YOU WILL RECALL TO GO BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AND EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH WARRANT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST WARRANT. THE PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDED THE ALLEGATION THAT:
"ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE SERVICE OF THE FIRST WARRANT, OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT DURING THAT SERVICE HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THEY SAW ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES INSIDE SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. THESE OFFICERS HAD ALSO SEEN THE GLOVE FOUND AT THE MURDER LOCATION AND HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THE GLOVES IN THE RESIDENCE APPEARED TO BE OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE ONE FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
#308. To: nolu chan (#307)
#313. To: misterwhite (#308)
You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.
(At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits. MR. NEUFELD: And once you entered the house after you collected item 11, the first item that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Those would be the drops of blood that you found in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And before you collected item no. 12, you did an inspection of the first floor of the house; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if we inspected first or picked up first.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.
MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And either before or after you picked up item 12, you did do an inspection of the first floor of the house looking for bloody clothing; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: For blood in general.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Looking for bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for blood smears?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for flecks of dry blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen sink?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--do you know whether Dennis Fung examined the kitchen sink?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally I don't know if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you examine the laundry room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you examine the living room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the dining room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that except for the several drops that you found right in the foyer inside the front door, that there were no bloodstains found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there was no blood smears found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there were no blood flakes, flakes of dry blood found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that's what you were looking for, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were taught, ma'am, looking for blood evidence to examine the location in a systematic way; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It is redundant.
MR. NEUFELD: Not to the inside of the house.
THE COURT: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: Especially with negative results.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you inspected the first floor, you went up to the second floor; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you inspect counters?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect light switches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect the shelves in Mr. Simpson's closet?
MS. MAZZOLA: As the shelves themselves or the contents? What--
MR. NEUFELD: Just the front of the shelves.
MS. MAZZOLA: I--
MR. NEUFELD: For any sign of blood.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we looked at the front of the shelves or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you look at knobs on the drawers?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And no flakes of dry blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And no smears of wet blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Defendant.)
MR. NEUFELD: And while you were there, Miss Mazzola, did you inspect either the intercom or the telephone to see whether or not there were any bloodstains on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know whether Dennis Fung did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know personally if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, are telephones one of the locations that you were taught at the SID mini academy to examine for the presence of blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We were not taught to look at the phone. We were taught to look at things in general.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, up on the second floor in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, were you shown a pair of dark socks on the floor?
MS. MAZZOLA: There were a pair of dark socks on the floor.
#314. To: nolu chan (#313)
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.
#315. To: misterwhite (#314)
You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.
#308. To: nolu chan (#307)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, also there were some legal issues as to matters that they would like to use during cross-examination, but perhaps bring up before the jury comes back.
THE COURT: Such as? Why don't you move that easel back.
MR. NEUFELD: Toward you, you mean?
THE COURT: Just move it back so when the jury comes in, they don't have to step over it. Thank you. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we bring up those issues, your Honor?
THE COURT: I haven't seen anything yet.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't understand. Well, one of the issues is the Defense would like to use a demonstration video that the Prosecution created, which is a video that was done simultaneously to the demonstration boards of the blood collection. And I don't object to the use of the video portion of the tape, per say, although it is probably not relevant, but there is an audio portion of the tape that basically doesn't pertain to anything other than my own conversations with the cameraman and with one of the criminalists as to how best to create that evidence, how best to edit it, how best to present it to the jury, and we ended up never using it. Probably I should not have released those comments to the Defense on the ground that they are privileged work product, but I was confident that there was so little to them that I just gave them the entire tape and didn't realize until later that I shouldn't have done so.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, I don't see any relevancy to them and I don't know why counsel would want to play those.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I ask Miss Mazzola to please step out during this discussion?
THE COURT: Sure. How long is this videotape?
MR. NEUFELD: Seven, eight minutes maybe.
THE COURT: Do you intend on having the audio portion with counsel's comments?
MR. NEUFELD: Absolutely, your Honor, because--they are not just counsel's comments, your Honor; they are counsel's instructions to the witness on what to do at certain points. And not only is counsel giving instructions on what to do, but counsel is actually conveying certain important messages of bias to the witness during the course of that videotape.
THE COURT: When do you plan on using the videotape?
MR. NEUFELD: Maybe--maybe in about 45 minutes.
THE COURT: Let's see the tape.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
(At 1:35 P.M. a videotape was played.)
(At 1:45 the tape concludes.)
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. I take it from what Mr. Goldberg said he is not objecting to the playing of the tape, he is objecting to the sound portion, so I will restrict my comment to the sound portion. Your Honor, the portion I believe Mr. Goldberg is concerned with and doesn't want to be played for the jury goes as follows, we made actually a transcript of the one small segment which we believe is certainly relevant and should be played to the jury. And although we are not opposed to playing the rest of the sound track, it goes like this: By Mr. Goldberg. "Is there any way we can get out that little part where she dropped some of the swatches? "Answer: I don't think I got it. "MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you didn't?" Then by the camera operator: "But if it is on there, it is on there. "MR. GOLDBERG: No. I mean is there any way you can edit it out? "Camera: Of course. If it is on there, I will edit it out." By Mr. Goldberg. "But then will you have a gap? "Camera: No, it will be like two pieces of video cut together." One second.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I guess I'm not going to be winning the award at the Cannes Film Festival this year.
THE COURT: I would say Morris Dees is not shaking in his boots.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is kind of like watching ice cream melt, and I don't mean Haagen Das. And your Honor, what I've heard from the Defense here is really absurd and I think it is fairly clear what they are trying to do, and it should not be permitted, and what we have here is where the People are creating a piece of demonstrative evidence. And that is all that this is. It is clear from all of my comments that that is going on, including comments like "You don't need to collect more than one swatch because one is enough for them to get the general idea" or "Can you please turn this way so we can get a better shot of you filling out the card." We are entitled to create this piece of evidence and make it as perfect as we like. We are entitled, as I at one point thought of doing, adding graphics, adding sound, subtracting from the tape, adding to the tape. I could have scored it to the theme music of mission impossible if I had wanted to, which I actually thought of doing. We are entitled to create this any way we want to and what counsel is really trying to do is he is trying to suggest that there is something wrong or untoward that has gone on here in terms of the creation of this documentary piece of evidence. The distinction is that we are not documenting an event. We are not trying to record a historical event. What we are trying to illustrate--
THE COURT: Isn't the issue, though, work product and demonstration of demonstrative evidence? Isn't that the issue?
MR. GOLDBERG: I realize this, your Honor, and it is work product and I believed this was the kind of thing that Defense would not try to use that, there was no reason to redact it out, and then subsequently changed my mind after the tape had already been released to them. , I don't think it is relevant, I'm sure Mr. Neufeld would agree, and I probably should have, and it is my work product and my discussion and creation of an exhibit. And more importantly it is not relevant. I point out what we have in a chronology is where we have a situation that I talked about doing something that I'm entirely within my rights to do, but did not do, and maintained the evidence unedited and then turned it over unedited to the Defense. So the idea that they would come forward and try to argue that there is some impropriety where we have a situation where I am discussing doing something that I am entitled to do that I didn't do, and the only reason they know I even discussed it is because I turned it over for them and maintained it, and for them now to try to introduce this into this case as an issue is grossly improper and should not be allowed and it doesn't have any relevance whatsoever.
THE COURT: Briefly.
MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Two things, your Honor. Just so the record at least on how this tape is received is clear, in fact--
THE COURT: Counsel, I don't care how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: The issue is how you get over the work product problem and how do you get over a 352 objection.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, it is not work product, your Honor, because what we are introducing it for is simply his statements in the presence of this witness to influence her testimony on the witness stand. And any statements that a lawyer makes in the presence of a witness, which has the effect of influencing her testimony, is admissible because it goes to her bias. That is how it comes in. And even if it wasn't his intent, even if it wasn't his deliberate intent to influence her testimony, it has that effect and we are allowed to argue that it has this effect to this jury. That is an inference that they are permitted to draw. Clearly the statements were made in her presence. That is the point. That is not work product. And in terms of 352, I don't see that as a big problem here, your Honor, because certainly it has probative value as to whether or not he said in her presence, you know, let's try and get rid of the portion where you are making this mistake, where you are dropping these swatches. That is a very important message being conveyed to her that the Prosecution in this case wants to make this whole procedure look as simple as possible and wants to cover up any kind of mistakes that can and do happen.
THE COURT: Which is why they gave you the tape with her dropping the swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: They gave me the tape and they didn't even know it had the sound track on it. Initially I thought it was silent as well and he was going to edit out his comments, your Honor, and then we played it up and we found the volume was there. That is why. The reason he turned over the tape, your Honor, is because you ordered him to. You may recall we went into chambers and he said he had this tape and I laid a foundation with you and you said, "Mr. Goldberg, turn over this tape now."
THE COURT: Counsel, as I indicated to you, I'm not interested in how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand.MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, let's just jump ahead a second to the June 14th search you did of the Bronco at the print shed. Okay?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you mentioned that you did what is known as a phenolphthalein test on the accelerator, the brake pedal and the emergency brake pad; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you did those three tests, did you place a single swab of cotton on each of those three items? Is that what you did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told just to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, what?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you use one swab for all three? Is that what you are saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Who was it who told you that you should use the same swab to do a presumptive test for blood on three separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Prior to your going out there on June 14th had you received any instruction or training on the use of the phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when Mr. Fung, your supervisor that day on June 14th, told you to use the same single swab on three different items to test for the presence of blood, did you say to him, "Mr. Fung, Dennis, this is not what I'm supposed to be doing"? Did you say that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: He was your supervisor that day; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you just followed his directions; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
#316. To: nolu chan (#315)
And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs.
#317. To: misterwhite (#316)
"MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?"
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in your training at SID did they ever teach you to use what are called negative controls?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a negative control is.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is using the same item, be it a swatch or a swab, that you would use to collect a stain or to run a test. You run the test on the--a brand new different swab. It should be negative since nothing has been collected on the swab.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, when you did the phenolphthalein test with the single swab on the brake pedal, the emergency brake and the accelerator, you didn't use any negative control to see whether or not something else other than blood might be generating a false positive reaction, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, turning to the Bronco search and collection of evidence, you said that on the pedals, that you used the same swab for the purposes of the phenolphtalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that done?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung just wanted to see if the pedals had been manipulated as if someone had driven the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: As opposed to what?
MS. MAZZOLA: As opposed to just getting in the Bronco and then getting right back out.MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did they assist you or at least give you instructions during the course of this demonstration?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to that.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. NEUFELD: Did--who else was present besides Mr. Goldberg and the camera operators?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung and Mr. Yamauchi.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of your doing this demonstration, having these photographs taken, did any--did either Mr. Yamauchi or Mr. Fung give you any direction?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg give you some instructions?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Instructions."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No. I think counsel understands the parameters here.
MR. NEUFELD: During the time that you were actually doing the demonstration, did Mr. Goldberg give you any direction as to what to do?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I still think it is vague and overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what he means by "Instruction."
THE COURT: All right. Obviously this is a demonstration project, a piece of demonstrative evidence. I'm sure the jury understands it was created for this case. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of that did Mr. Goldberg give you specific instructions?
MS. MAZZOLA: As to what he wanted to depict, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the sequence there when you should do certain thing?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not the sequence.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you first set out to do this demonstration for Mr. Goldberg and the Prosecution, did the Prosecution attempt to record this demonstration with a videotape as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the video was shot at the same time that the still photographs were taken?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was your job during this videotape demonstration to act out the role of the criminalist collecting bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean this wasn't a real case, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me put this down now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That it might be shown to the jury.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so while the District Attorney was producing this videotape, you tried to perform the task of criminalist to the best of your ability; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And knowing that the videotape was meant to represent the process of bloodstain collection as practiced by you, you also tried to make it as realistic as possible; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the tape--have you seen the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. Was that ever said to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to show how simple it was. Just to show the procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: Did any Prosecutor ever express to you the importance of conveying to this jury that it's actually--that it is a simple procedure?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a simple procedure, but that-
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he said there was a chance it might.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact that on the videotape you are depicted dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you at all concerned that the videotape depicted you dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that was during one of the prep sessions.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you saying that the very first time you ever heard that question asked was when you took the witness stand here?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was mentioned when we were taking the photographs for the collection demonstration.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. At this time, your Honor, I would like to play the videotape.
THE COURT: All right. Let's mark it.
MR. NEUFELD: What's next in order?
THE COURT: 1117.
THE COURT: Well, you've seen your colleagues.
MR. NEUFELD: Exactly. All right.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, did you notice the date at the beginning of this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It says 4-4-95. Does that refresh your recollection as to when this videotape was made?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Do me a favor. I'm sorry, your Honor. Could you just go back to the beginning one more time? Can you stop there a minute?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, is that your--you're wearing leather gloves, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's your right hand that's now resting on the ground, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back up a few frames? That's good. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that your right hand that's resting on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say that the ground there outside on the street is dirty?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: You want to describe--unfortunately, Mr. Neufeld, since we don't have a real-time counter and if you're going to isolate particular items, you're going to need to describe them, either print them or describe them.
MR. NEUFELD: This will be 1117-A.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, can you continue?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola-
MR. NEUFELD: Stop again.
MR. NEUFELD: --did you just take the tweezers and put them--and move them from the left hand and transfer them to the right hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the right hand that you just had put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: What you're doing now is, you're making the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 5?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, on the dirty pavement outdoors like this, would you expect to see some kind of dirt or debris on the control swatch?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion.
MR. NEUFELD: Based on your experience.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not.
MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not. I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Even on an out-door pavement like this, you wouldn't expect to find some dirt?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility you would find some dirt.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it a probability that you would find some dirt, Miss Mazzola?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you put the plastic bag in the envelope at that point, you folded it over to seal it, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would retain the moisture in it, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would help keep the swatch from slipping out.
MR. NEUFELD: Other than preventing the swatches from slipping out, by folding over the top of the plastic bag when it's wet inside, that also will--that will also result in preserving the moisture in those swatches, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you make the control swatch, Miss Mazzola, you then clean the tweezers off before you go on to actually collect the bloodstain; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you freeze it there for a second?
MR. NEUFELD: And what you just did, ma'am, was to pick up--you're going to use that wet wipe or Kleenex to clean the tweezer, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The chem-wipe.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you just picked up that chem-wipe with the same right hand which you had been resting on the dirty concrete, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And are some of the swatches falling to the ground and missing the cap?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Is this the first time you knew that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you said you did know, however, that you had dropped swatches during the course of this videotape, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, comment had been made by others present about the fact that you had dropped swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--you also testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, that you had never dropped the swatch that had blood on it. Was that your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, had the Prosecutor told you during the prep sessions that it was safe for you to give that answer because we don't have you doing that on the videotape?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is improper. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: You also testified, Miss Mazzola, on direct examination that one reason--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You also testified that at crime scenes, your gloved hand has never touched a bloodstain or wet blood; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But isn't one reason why you wear these protective gloves in the first place is because you could accidentally touch a bloodstain or wet blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We wear them for our own protection because we are around blood.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you wear these gloves for your own protection, Miss Mazzola, isn't that protect--isn't that to protect you from an accidental contact with blood? Isn't that the whole purpose you wear the gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: Blood among other things, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it's anticipated by the people who taught you at SID to wear gloves that accidental contact between a criminalist and blood does happen from time to time; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So when you say that you have never touched blood or a wet bloodstain even with your protected gloves on, what you're really saying is that you've never done it such as that you're aware of it; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Such that I was aware of, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, this is going to be the swatch of the actual evidence, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you stop there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it's a little hard to tell. It's possible-
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you actually see any discoloration in the area immediately adjacent to that bloodstain in this picture before you put that wet control swatch on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see the area slightly in front of the swatch between the swatch and the stain itself.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't the area at that point, Miss Mazzola, fairly consistent and not darker, appreciably darker in the area--in the immediate area where you're placing down the control swatch at this point? Isn't that a fair assessment of what's depicted here, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it looks slightly darker to me, but-
MR. NEUFELD: Now, could you go forward to where she's about to put down the--yeah. Go a little bit further. Slow it down. In slow-mo. That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now do you see the discoloration created by the moisture emanating out from the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's a different color than the other discolorations in the pavement, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. All right. And you can see even at that point the moisture has almost touched the bloodstain, hasn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to almost.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There's still separation between the two.
MR. NEUFELD: There's still some separation there. Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, go forward to the next place where we're about to collect the evidence.
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was ever mentioned.
MR. NEUFELD: well, Miss Mazzola, if in fact that swatch itself had been contaminated by your dirty hand, for instance, would the contamination be transferred to the moisture that is emanating out from the swatch? Could that happen?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which swatch.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know if it could happen?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it could happen.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if there was dirt on your hand and your hand came into contact with the control swatch, would you agree that it's possible that there could be a transfer of that trace evidence of that contaminant from your glove to the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would be possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if that control swatch was moistened with water, that there could be a transfer of trace evidence from the swatch to the water?
MS. MAZZOLA: There would be items from the ground in the water, but the bloodstain itself is on the ground. So it's all in the same substrate.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that assumes, does it not, Miss Mazzola, that everywhere on the ground, you have the same contaminants and the same substrate? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That close a substrate would be approximately the same.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you put your right hand down on the ground, you didn't do that two inches away or one inch away from the blood drop. You did that several feet away, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And if your hand came into contact, the hand that touched the dirty pavement several feet away came into contact with the control swatch, it could contaminate the control swatch with whatever contaminant your right hand came in contact with, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If the hand came in contact with that particular swatch, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And if that swatch then comes into contact with water, the water can pick up that contaminant, can't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility.
MR. NEUFELD: And if that water then spreads outward and actually comes into contact with the bloodstain, then the bloodstain can come into contact with the very same contaminant that the right hand initially came into contact with. Isn't that a possibility?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But it's your testimony that you were never instructed to keep the control swatch moisture not in contact with the bloodstain? They never taught you that at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was never a strong point that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it a small point that was brought up?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: So is it--best of your recollection, it could have been, but you just don't recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, would it make sense to you as a criminalist not to let the moisture from the control swatch come into contact with the bloodstain?
MS. MAZZOLA: That would be preferable.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the coin envelope is not sealed, is it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. Not sealed.
MR. NEUFELD: Now you're cleaning the tweezers again?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, Miss Mazzola, you're holding the tweezers in your right hand now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Same right hand that touched the ground, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: My right hand.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And is that your right hand hitting the ground again?
MS. MAZZOLA: My hand was on the ground, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Notice you're stretching.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it tiring bending down there to do even a single swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. When it is extremely cold, my left knee tends to tighten up a bit.
MR. NEUFELD: And in this instance, you're actually brushing away the swatches that you actually dropped to the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung were also present during this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Yamauchi was.
MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Yamauchi-- I thought you said Dennis Fung was there as well.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you hold it a second, please?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe he was back and forth between the demonstration area and the lab itself.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you actually collected the swatch, were your knees on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you back up? Back up to just where she's about to get up.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you now putting your left hand on your knee?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the knee that was just on the pavement?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was on the pavement.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when--you're wiping the ground now with your right hand, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't change gloves before you went on to the next swatching, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Hold it one second. You're going forward. What are you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Again, your right hand with the tweezers is going down to the dirty ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Is on the ground.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that the pavement outside where you're shooting this has dirt on it, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola-
MR. NEUFELD: Let's stop for one second.
MR. NEUFELD: I notice in the demonstration board, when you're actually--when they show you either using the control swatch or swatch on a piece of evidence, you don't see any of the swatches that are lying on the ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: That they don't show any swatches lying on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: After you finished making this videotape, did the Prosecutor ask you to repeat the exercise again?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it-
MR. NEUFELD: Hold it.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it coming into contact with the portion of the bloodstain that moves out in an arm to the right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that it is.
MR. NEUFELD: One second. Can you just back it up a little bit, please, about five seconds? Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, see the dirt on the fingertips of the third and fourth fingers of your glove?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue. Stop.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you were having some difficulty getting the swatch to get onto the stain there, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Slow down. Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: And so now you've moved your fingers on the dirty glove that had been in contact with the pavement down toward the tip of those tweezers, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are still a ways away from the tip.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand that. But you've moved them down away from the position they were normally in to try and get that swatch to come off the tip, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the same hand that had the dirt on the fingers, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, between the collection--now you're collecting item no. 6; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, between the collection of item 5 and item no. 6, you never changed your gloves, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you never changed your gloves is because no one at SID ever taught you to change your gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: They don't need to teach you when to change your gloves. You change your gloves periodically.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did anyone at LAPD SID ever teach you to change your gloves between the handling of different blood stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that one of the procedures that you have been taught--
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught as part of your instruction on forensic photography to have a ruler placed in the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you use a ruler when doing this demonstration to indicate--for purposes of documenting the stain, the size of the stain?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you not do that because the Prosecutors didn't tell you to do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't do that, but no one told me not to.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
MS. MAZZOLA: Two I believe.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that additional training and more experience makes you more proficient today than you were 10 months ago?
MS. MAZZOLA: Experience helps.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting blood or bloodstains, mistakes can occur?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mistakes can happen, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting bloodstains, especially in evidence that's going to go out for DNA analysis, that the criminalist must understand how in the course of making different mistakes DNA could become degraded?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think we bear in mind DNA specifically. We look at any serological testing.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught at the SID mini academy any connection at all between the mistakes that can happen at a crime scene and the effects it will have on DNA or other serological testing?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, the wet swatches, Miss Mazzola, were placed in the truck in brown paper bags; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Does the LAPD SID unit have a written procedure for storing biological evidence in the van?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there's a refrigerator in the van, isn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Fung instruct you to put the bloodstain swatches in the refrigerator?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see Fung put them in the refrigerator, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that or were you aware of the fact that the refrigerator worked at least some of the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was aware that it worked some of the time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that it would work for several hours eventually before the battery going dead?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure how long it would work.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you ever been aware of the fact that it did work for more than one or two hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I ever found that out.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't find out how long it did work for?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that even a few hours of keeping wet blood swatches in the refrigerator is better than not keeping them there at all?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you had been told by people at LAPD SID that heat can have some effect on bacteria growing on the blood swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I assume there's some other witness who is going to testify to these events.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 12 is more than a single drop of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If I remember correctly, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, it is three drops of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not exactly sure how many.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the other drops of blood that you or bloodstains that you collected from the driveway that day, they were all individual drops; were they not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you taught, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you have distinct drops, even if they're close together, that they should be collected in separate packages?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was up to the discretion of the supervisor.
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show 14-
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: 1118? 1118.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--also look at that. Do these two pages represent a handout that you received at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. They look familiar.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in the handout that you received from the SID mini academy, weren't you told specifically, quote, if there is more than one distinct stain, these should be treated as different stains and collected separately?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's what the handout says.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And, Miss Mazzola, does it anywhere in that handout say, "Oh, but wait a second. You can make an exception if the senior criminalist says to"?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive any written instructions at all from LAPD SID suggesting that you could make an exception from that rule when the senior criminalist so chose?
MS. MAZZOLA: There is nothing written down.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, even on the demo board that we just looked at, Miss Mazzola, items 5 and 6 are only several inches apart, aren't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe--well, what do you call by several?
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that items 5 and 6 are within a foot of one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: They could be within a foot, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, I believe you said that you had also been taught it wasn't necessary to pick up every single drop in a area, but only to pick up representative drops; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, other than the three drops that you saw in the foyer where you picked up item no. 12, weren't there some other small drops in the vicinity that you didn't bother to collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I saw any other little drops around that area or not.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: Just for foundation for the next question.
THE COURT: That's what she said.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, from what you've just said, the greater number of drops that you saw in any particular area was that concentration of drops in the foyer inside the front door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is that photograph showing at least three different blood drops?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the foyer near the card no. 12?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that that was the only blood drops or bloodstains that you observed on the first floor of the house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after you collected those blood drops in item no. 12 in the foyer near the front door, that you then walked up the stairway?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we started going upstairs, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the light carpet on the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you examined that light carpet on the stairs, there was absolutely no bloodstains seen there at all, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were looking, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And wasn't Dennis Fung looking?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And he didn't say he observed any either, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were not only looking for blood drops at that point, you were also looking for dry flecks of blood as well, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Anything that was red.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see anything that was red on this white carpet ascending all the way up the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember what color the carpet was.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it light color ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was light, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It was the kind of color that if there was a red drop, it would stand out, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then as you walked down the hallway on that second floor toward Mr. Simpson's bedroom, there was also that same light colored carpeting, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall. Could be. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you--you were examining the floor, weren't you, at that point?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any blood drops there either, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any flecks of blood, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you examined that stairway going up the stairs, ma'am, did you examine the banister also?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And on the banister, ma'am, there were no flecks of blood, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung personally observe them in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And on that banister, there were no flecks of blood either, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not see any.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't mention any to you, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And if you had seen them, you would have collected them, wouldn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would have photographed them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And also on that banister, ma'am, there were no smears of blood, were there, indicating that somebody had blood on their hands? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not recall seeing anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't observe any either that he mentioned to you, did he?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung in your presence say to you that he had observed any smears of blood on the banister?
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, why don't you rephrase that question; did Mr. Fung point out to you any blood smears, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: You can answer the Judge's question.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
#319. To: nolu chan (#317)
"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."
#321. To: misterwhite (#319)
"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."
#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."
#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)
#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.
#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)
#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?
#344. To: nolu chan (#342)
The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous.
#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."
#354. To: nolu chan (#347)
(Edited)
Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.
#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.
#365. To: nolu chan (#360)
"returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag."
Item #16 -- Baggage tag
#368. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#365)
As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES??
The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case.
Of course, during the trial much was said about Detective Vannatter leaving downtown headquarters with O. J. Simpson's whole blood sample but, instead of walking a few hundred yards and booking it into evidence at Parker Technical Center, driving twenty-two miles to the Rockingham scene where he says he handed it over to criminalist Dennis Fung. (Barry Scheck's cross-examination of Fung brought out ad nauseam that we have to take Vannatter, Fung, and Andrea Mazzola's word that the transfer of the blood vial actually took place; on news video, the gray envelope was not in the hands of Fung or Mazzola when they twice brought evidence out to their van before leaving Rockingham.) Such a thing, all agreed, was totally contrary to LAPD's written rules and procedures, to say nothing about simple logic.
Some months earlier, the defense had hired Dr. John Gerdes to evaluate LAPD crime lab procedures in the year before the case. He concluded the lab was a "cesspool of contamination," and he would testify to that. Gerdes had also discovered that the vials containing the reference samples from Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with Simpson's DNA. That fact and its implications were crucial.
MR. SCHECK: Did you get blood on your gloves when you opened Mr. Simpson's reference tube?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Soaked through the paper.
MR. SCHECK: You remember that now?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: In other words, didn't you testify before that as you opened the tube, you did it with a chem-wipe?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And blood soaks through the chem-wipe.
MR. SCHECK: So you're now saying that you have an independent recollection that the blood soaked through the chem-wipe?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Along the tip edges, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: And that's something that you didn't even recall when you were asked about this on direct examination?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Was I asked that specifically?
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall being asked how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference tube on direct examination and giving a description?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I recall describing that process.
MR. SCHECK: And when you gave that description, did you include the fact that the blood went right through the chem-wipe, got your gloves dirty?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't believe so.MR. SCHECK: Now, this morning, in reviewing your notes a little bit more carefully--well, withdrawn. I shouldn't say that. In reviewing your notes, you agreed that you could have cut samples from the glove before you cut swatches from the Bundy samples?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Let me try it this way: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on Mr. Simpson's reference sample?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on the Bundy samples?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was in the series of 23 tubes that you were doing in one day?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did those extractions in the serology laboratory?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did it in your hood?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Part of the time.
MR. SCHECK: And the location was either your hood or your desk right next to the hood where you were doing these extractions?
MR. YAMAUCHI: My work station and the hood, yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was the location?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Locations.
MR. SCHECK: And the time that it took you to do the extraction on these 23 tubes was how long?
MR. YAMAUCHI: It is approximately an hour and a half that that process would take place over.
MR. SCHECK: And as far as you are concerned, your protocol says it is perfectly all right to handle Mr. Simpson's reference tubes along with those 23 samples in that location during that timing period? That is perfectly fine?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Sure, provided you take the precautions that I take.MR. SCHECK: Now, could you please define for the jury the term "Contamination" in a forensic setting, in terms of DNA work?
DR. GERDES: In terms of DNA work it is quite simply human DNA that is found where it shouldn't be.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of DNA laboratories, would it be useful to break down the kind of contamination that one encounters?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And could you please tell us--could you break those down to us in certain categories?
DR. GERDES: Certainly. I think a way to look at this is to start all the way back at the beginning at the crime scene and the first type of risk of contamination is going to be called what is called cross-contamination, and as I mentioned, this is human DNA finding its way into a sample where it shouldn't be there, and the--that is as a result of cross-transferring from one space to another physically, and that can happen by mishandling. And the--that is because if you have a sample here with a large amount of DNA and another sample with small amount of DNA, this technique is so exquisitely sensitive that you can transfer without even knowing it frequently a small amount of DNA from item 1 where there was a large amount to item 2.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "Exquisitely sensitive," we have heard that term before. What do you mean by that? It is a scientific term?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But could you try to define that a little in plainer English, if we could?
DR. GERDES: Yeah. It simply means that you can find a very, very, very small amount. This technique can theoretically find a single copy of what you are looking for.
DR. GERDES: Yes. This--this particular kind of contamination is the one that is the most subversive and that--by that I mean that once you've done that, once you have accidentally transferred from one item to the next, if you were to do the DNA analysis of both items, the DNA analysis doesn't distinguish where that human DNA came from. It is simply going to type what human DNA is there. So that means that if you were to type those two items and you had accidentally done that, those items were--would probably type as the same item, especially, you know, the smaller amount would be most likely overwhelmed by the transferred DNA. So they would type as the same DNA, meaning coming from the same individual, and it wouldn't matter if at that point from that point on it wouldn't matter if this sample that was falsely incorporated--falsely incorporated, if that sample was typed by five, ten, other laboratories or by five or ten different gene systems, it is always going to come up as a match. And the problem with that is there really is no control, unfortunately. There is no way of incorporating into the system a control that says that happened.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. SCHECK: What other kind of categories of contamination are there?
DR. GERDES: Well, the second is usually once the DNA or the specimen is transferred to a laboratory, now you can have the same kind of transfer, by the way, cross-transfer can happen anytime that item is manipulated, either in the crime scene, in the laboratory itself, or anytime they are handled, those specimens, all the way through the process that can happen. A second type of contamination, though, that occurs, is the fact that when you are dealing with DNA the samples are fairly dirty samples. In the process of analyzing them you have to add these liquid solutions that contain all of the building blocks for the DNA and the enzyme that is responsible for allowing us to copy it, and the components of that reaction that allows the PCR process to occur.
MR. SCHECK: These are the reagents that you pour into things?
DR. GERDES: Correct, they are called reagents.
MR. SCHECK: Can they get contaminated?
DR. GERDES: Yes, they can.
MR. SCHECK: And what is known as amplicon or PCR carry-over contamination?
DR. GERDES: That is a slightly different concept, and the PCR process I'm sure you are aware of that now, basically allows us to take a small number and copy it, sort of like a molecular Xeroxing up to a very high number. Now, if you do that for the same gene over and over, day after day, with multiple samples, what happens is you have a build-up or can have a build-up of the copies, and when you have a build-up of those copies it is very easy to accidentally get one of those into your reagent or into your reactions, and that is called amplification product carry-over.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Dr. Gerdes, based on your review of the data in this case, have you formed an opinion as to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about contamination at the LAPD DNA laboratory?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my method here is that I'm going to elicit the opinions of the doctor and then give the basis of his expert opinion.
THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Have you an opinion, within a degree of scientific certainly, about contamination at the LAPD laboratory?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is it?
DR. GERDES: I found that the LAPD laboratory has substantial contamination problem that is persistent and substantial.
MR. SCHECK: Is it chronic? What does that term mean?
DR. GERDES: Chronic--it is chronic and it is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away. I can find it month after month and it persists.
MR. SCHECK: Is--as a DNA lab director do you have an opinion about the risk of error due to contamination at the LAPD?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: As a molecular biologist and DNA laboratory director, do you have an opinion about the collection, specimen handling and sampling method used by the personnel at the Los Angeles Police Department in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is it?
DR. GERDES: I found that the specimen handling procedures were done in such a manner that it had a tremendous--there was a tremendous risk of the potential of cross-contamination.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Are they correct in their statement that it is a laminar flow hood?
DR. GERDES: No.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, there definitely are problems under those circumstances.
MR. SCHECK: And is that a situation which increases the risk of cross-contamination?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And why is that?
DR. GERDES: Well, I also believe at the very beginning of my testimony I described the fact that if you have something in high concentration next to something in low concentration there is a greater chance that you can get small amounts of material from the substance with high concentration into the one with low, and so there is a greater risk of that kind of cross-contamination because you are handling the two at the same time next to each other.
THE COURT: And the nodding of the jurors indicate that they recollect that from this trial, too, and they recollect it from a month ago.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with his testimony that between the period of 9:00 A.M. and 11:20 A.M. he handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample and created a fitzco card?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: He moved next to the Rockingham glove, did a series of pheno tests and cuttings and initialed that glove?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
DR. GERDES: I believe the order was 52 and then the others, but the exact sequence is different than what you stated, but they were done.
MR. SCHECK: They handled the Bundy blood drops all within that period?
DR. GERDES: Yes, they did.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your judgment was--what is your opinion of this laboratory practice of handling Mr. Simpson's reference tubes in the way Mr. Yamauchi described it and these evidence samples within that period?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: That is not an acceptable practice in any forensic laboratory.
MR. SCHECK: Why?
DR. GERDES: Because of the unacceptable risk of contamination from the reference sample which has high levels of DNA and the evidence items that were processed which have low levels.
DR. GERDES: Yes, I recall that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your experience when you open one of these vacutainer tubes, what happens or what happened?
DR. GERDES: Well, you can hear-
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It is a vacutainer. That means it is under vacuum. It is sort of like opening a coffee can, you can hear it and there is an aerosol that is created.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "Aerosol" what do you mean?
DR. GERDES: Aerosol is very small fine mist of droplets that would then spray.
MR. SCHECK: That is of blood?
DR. GERDES: Of blood in this case, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And is in--in terms of the DNA content of a reference tube and that aerosol, how does it compare--what is the nature of the DNA content of--of such a substance?
DR. GERDES: Well, it doesn't take very much blood to have a substantial amount of DNA.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you read Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where you indicated that after he opened the reference tube and the blood went through his chem wipe and went onto his glove that he then disposed of the gloves, he can't recall, either in the evidence processing room or in the serology lab?
DR. GERDES: That is what I remember, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, given the nature of his testimony about the way he opened the tube, do you think that what he did next in terms of moving onto the analysis of the other sample was an acceptable laboratory practice?
DR. GERDES: No. I mean, you know, you've had a spillage, you should have basically stopped everything, cleaned down the entire lab and waited for a period of time before you move on to something as critical as evidence items.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No. It represents unacceptable risk of cross-contamination.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained I think we have visited that topic now for the third time.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, let's move to the next one.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: One question. Is it a good laboratory-well, maybe not one. Is it a good laboratory practice, sir, to handle in the same period in the same location samples from different scenes?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No, it is not.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you aware that on June 15th Mr. Yamauchi handled samples from—that included the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson, the reference sample from Ronald Goldberg, samples from the Bronco and samples from the Rockingham foyer LAPD item no. 12?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, he handled those at that time.
MR. SCHECK: And of course on June 14th he handled the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches?
DR. GERDES: Correct.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Is it a good idea to handle reference samples from suspects and victims in the same
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No, it is not a good idea because of again the risk of cross-contamination.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Does that seem to you, in terms of ordinary laboratory practices--well, in your opinion, what do you think about handling all those samples in the time period he described?
DR. GERDES: It seems to be a lot of samples for that time period.
DR. GERDES: Yes, I believe they should do that.
MR. SCHECK: And why?
DR. GERDES: Especially with a technique like PCR. This is such a sensitive technique you might not even notice that you have a small amount of blood or even an aerosol of that blood on your glove, and unless you change the glove you can't eliminate the possibility that you might transfer that to the next sample.
DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with their testimony that when they took the swatches out of the tubes the next morning and scraped them out with a pipette on to a bindle that they did not change the laboratory paper between each item?
DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: In your opinion are those sound laboratory practices in terms of the danger of cross-contamination?
DR. GERDES: That is going to create a shower of an aerosol which is going to fall down on that entire area and can easily be transferring DNA from one item to another.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of aerosols then, since that is one of our little logos, I take it--what was that you were saying about scraping the swatches out of the tubes?
DR. GERDES: Yes, I have.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, when aerosols are created of these kind of particles in a laboratory do they just fall right to the ground or how long do they remain ambient in an atmosphere?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, foundation, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the problem of dust or aerosols in DNA laboratories?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
DR. GERDES: Yes, I am familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a sound laboratory practice?
DR. GERDES: It creates unacceptable risk.
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: This is the first solution that you use in the process of extracting DNA from a specimen.
MR. SCHECK: And how much does the protocol indicate should be taken out of a bottle of chelex?
DR. GERDES: It's basically a drop, very small amount.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in terms of the amount that you take out of the bottle, does that have any relationship to the use of aliquots in terms of the way certain laboratories handle this kind of solution?
DR. GERDES: Yes. With this kind of solution where you use a very small amount of each item, you would tend to aliquot it into smaller volumes so that you don't go into that bottle a long time. The amount that's shown in this bottle is a six-month supply.
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: And why is it--why--if you went into the bottle many times in terms of contamination, does that have any consequences?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Every time you open the bottle, there's a chance of something falling in there. Every time you pipette or put a pipetter into that bottle, there's a chance of introducing something accidentally. So it goes back to the manipulation we talked about earlier. The more you manipulate things, the more you go in and out of them, the higher the risk. Every time you open, there's a risk and the more times you open it, the greater the risk.
MR. SCHECK: Have you reviewed records in connection with the hybridization sheets from the Los Angeles Police Department as to lots of chelex? Have you done that?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, up here on this particular bottle, there is a no. 5. What does that represent?
DR. GERDES: That's their lot number.
MR. SCHECK: Have you looked at lot numbers on the laboratory sheets with respect to the use of chelex at the lab?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the frequency in general terms of how often they go to a new lot?
DR. GERDES: The lot numbers are used, the same lot numbers recorded for DNA extractions over a period of months.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a good practice in your opinion?
DR. GERDES: No.
DR. GERDES: This is another reagent. This particular reagent called TE buffer is used to resuspend DNA.
MR. SCHECK: And whose TE buffer is this, if we can go a little tighter on this picture?
DR. GERDES: You'll notice there's a CY on the bottle. So this is Collin Yamauchi's.
MR. SCHECK: And so this picture was taken at his work station?
DR. GERDES: At his work station, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And, again, how much TE buffer is used in the course of running a DNA test?
DR. GERDES: Less than a dot. A drop.
MR. SCHECK: And is this another kind of reagent that is--ought to be aliquotted?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the date on this particular picture?
DR. GERDES: 5-25-93.
MR. SCHECK: And when was this picture taken?
DR. GERDES: January 18th, 1995.
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: The significance is that it indicates that the area at which contamination is occurring in this laboratory is an early area, most likely in the DNA extraction or sample handling.
DR. GERDES: I believe there is some indication of that.
MR. SCHECK: And does this cross-contamination show up--does this evidence show up not just in the way samples were handled at LAPD, but how they were typed then subsequently at DOJ and Cellmark?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, on this chart, there's a--could you explain what the-
DR. GERDES: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: --code is over here?
DR. GERDES: Yeah. These indicate the typings for the three reference individuals, the DQ-Alpha and one locus, the GC locus of the polymarker gene system.
MR. SCHECK: So those represent the genotypes for the three individuals here?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So on the DQ-Alpha-
DR. GERDES: On the DQ-Alpha, there's a 1.1, 1.2 for Mr. Simpson, there's a 1.1, 1.1 for Nicole Brown Simpson and there's a 1.3, 4 for Ron Goldman.
MR. SCHECK: And on the GC locus and the polymarker system, what are the types for these three individuals?
DR. GERDES: On the GC locus of the polymarker gene, it's a BC for Mr. Simpson and a C for Nicole Brown Simpson and an AA for Mr. Goldman.
MR. SCHECK: Now, the next three boxes indicate something called "LAPD typing sheet," "Cellmark type sheets" and "DOJ type sheets"?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What are those?
DR. GERDES: These are the recorded results that were found on the typing sheets of--on those dates when these specific references were typed.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's move first to June 15th, 1994 when Mr. Yamauchi did this initial typing. I take it he recorded for item no. 12, the blood drops found in the foyer, Mr. Simpson's genotype, 1.1, 1.2?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the reference sample, could you tell us what was recorded and also what you observed on the sheet?
DR. GERDES: Yes. There—it was recorded as a 1.1, 1.1, and on the actual typing, I can see a very faint 1.2.
DR. GERDES: It's on their report, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--and you can see that very faint 1.1 on the strip itself?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Should I put the arrow on it?
MR. SCHECK: And so we'll call the new arrow here-
DR. GERDES: It's right here (Indicating).
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, he did.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: These results are consistent with cross-contamination of the 1.2 from item 12 into Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's reference samples.
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant because the 1.2 doesn't have that kind of artifact. And if you see anything on there, that means there's DNA there.
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Was that on December 31st, 1994?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And what do the typing sheets for the Department of Justice indicate?
DR. GERDES: The Department of Justice recorded on Nicole Brown Simpson a 1.1, 1.1 with a faint trace 1.3 and a trace of 1.2.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman, what did they record?
DR. GERDES: Mr. Goldman, they recorded a 1.3, 4 with a faint trace 1.1.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And given the rules of interpretation, what does that mean about a 1.2?
DR. GERDES: You would also have to consider the fact in this setup, that there might be a mask 1.2.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It indicates contamination.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the 1.3, could that be an artifact?
DR. GERDES: In this case, again, that is known to have a cross-hybridization problem under certain circumstances, and the difficulty here is, we also have the 1 allele showing up again because of the 1.1 and, therefore, you can't really tell if this is an artifact or real.
MR. SCHECK: And when you said under the circumstances where 1.3 is an artifact are what kind of circumstances?
DR. GERDES: With high level of DNA, which this may be because it's a reference sample and the fact that there's also the 1 dot showing.
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: My interpretation of this pattern is, it has two possible explanations. The first explanation is that there is cross-contamination of Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman, which is then subsequently typed by the two laboratories that LAPD sent their specimens to. The second explanation is that there are possibly contaminants and artifacts that are found at LAPD that are also found at Cellmark and also found at DOJ, and those artifacts just happen to be consistent with the contamination of the cross-contamination pattern.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, there would have to be--at LAPD, with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson, that 1.2 would have to be LAPD contaminating it?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But from--and the 1.1 would be an artifact?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: That b would have to be a contaminant that coincidentally is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson to Nicole Brown Simpson.
MR. SCHECK: And what about the DOJ typing? What about that 1.2? What would that have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD?
DR. GERDES: That would have to be, again, coincidental appearance of the 1.2 that is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson's.
MR. SCHECK: And then the 1.1, what could that be?
DR. GERDES: 1.-
MR. SCHECK: 1.1 in Mr. Goldman's sample.
DR. GERDES: Oh, in Mr. Goldman's sample, it's the same answer. That's would have to be a DX or an artifact that's consistent with cross-contamination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Does that data, Dr. Gerdes--what effect does that data have on your view with respect to the efficacy of substrate controls that were used at LAPD in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation, beyond the expertise of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It undermines my confidence in those controls since there is some evidence here that the cross-contamination occurred.
DR. GERDES: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you've expressed your opinion, your concerns, with respect to that RFLP result?
DR. GERDES: In terms of cross-contamination, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
DR. GERDES: It could be cross-contaminated.
#369. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#368)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D2
It could could be demonstrated, he wrote, that something odd, suspicious, or just plain wrong had occurred during the colleciton or LAPD lab testing and handling of just about every drop or smear of blood evidence. "The DNA and forensic evidence simply cannot be trusted," Scheck concluded.
The blood on the sock and the blood on the back gate were keystones in the defense argument that blood evidence had been “planted” in the case. Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the samples were far less degraded that the samples recovered the morning after the murders; (2) analysis of the sample showed the presence of EDTA, a preservative used to prevent coagulation of blood specimens in test tubes, but not found in natural blood. The stain on the sock was not observed by the detectives who seized it, the criminalists who initially examined it, or the defense experts who initially examined it. The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it.
Hard lesson number four is also a message for law enforcement: Garbage in is garbage out. The scientific breakthroughs that brought us DNA technology place a very powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement. Like any other technology, however, it's only as good as the people who operate it.
#370. To: nolu chan (#369)
Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the
#372. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#370)
"The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it."
MR. NEUFELD: All right. In your opinion, Professor MacDonell, is the ankle stain that you saw a spatter stain?
PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon just the--what you said or my examination. The examination--
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the witness' testimony. He never indicated he saw a stain, just a cut-out.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: No.
PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon the examination that I made of the socks at that time. I did not find any distribution of blood that I could consider a spatter. I have seen other more convincing evidence of it.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, with respect to the ankle stain, I want you to focus on that, in your opinion was the ankle stain a spatter stain?
PROF. MACDONELL: Oh, no, not the ankle stain. I thought you meant the entire stocking.
MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm focusing now on the ankle stain in particular.
PROF. MACDONELL: The ankle stain was very large; it was not spatter.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. That calls for speculation. This witness only saw a hole. There was no stain there; it was cut out.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, first of all, was there stain surrounding the perimeter of the hole that was cut out?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The cut-out was taken out of the middle of the stain. That is the way you usually do it.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware that Mr. Sims has already testified that there was a bloodstain on the perimeter of that cut-out area?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please define what "Spatter" is.
PROF. MACDONELL: Spatter" is simply the result of impact to usually a liquid. In this instance we are discussing blood, and it creates a spray of small drops, not like gunshot, but it creates a spray and that spray then is projected, and if it strikes a target, in the case of the target, I mean a surface that it hits, like it might hit the table or a table top or a wall, when it strikes that, when you see a sufficient number of small spots, you can determine that it is the result of an energy source consistent with a spattering, such as just clapping your hands if you had a liquid in your hands."
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that in your opinion the stain on the ankle was not a spatter--spatter pattern or spatter?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, it was very large. It was about an inch-by-inch-and-a-half oval.
MR. NEUFELD: And in your opinion, sir, what type of stain was that bloodstain?
PROF. MACDONELL: That was a transfer pattern resulting from, I'm quite sure but not positive, a compression transfer. A lateral or swiping action is the other possibility, but on the dark socks I could not see any evidence of a feathering out on either side, so I conclude it has to be a compression transfer with no lateral movement sideways, or if any, extremely slight.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you say a compression movement, would that be consistent with a smear as opposed to a spatter?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. A smear generally I think is interpreted as having some kind of a lateral motion, otherwise it is just a drop or a pool, but it is not as consistent with a smear as it is just having blood on your hand or some object and touching it and pulling it away. For example, a fingerprint made with blood that is identifiable is not a swipe action or a smear or it would not be identifiable. It is a direct compression and release.MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, are you familiar, sir, with Gary Sims' testimony that when he examined the inner surface of the opposite side of this ankle stain he said, "There was no indication seen of soaking through to the other side," unquote? That is at page 27767 in the transcript. Were you aware that Mr. Sims said that?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, are you familiar with Mr. Sims' testimony that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried? Are you aware of that, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with Mr. Sims' conclusions?
PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I can't disagree with what he has said about what he saw, but I saw things in addition to what he has said. He said he saw powdered blood, powdered red material. He may have. I didn't see very much of that, but I did see some red spots that could be characterized as powdered blood, but to me a powder is ground up. It is like fine sugar, powdered sugar, confectioner's sugar as opposed to flakes, and I saw more of what you might call Cornflakes compared to sugar or something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: When you looked through the microscope at the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock, did you see any evidence that the blood had actually soaked through to the other side of the sock?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what evidence you saw that led you to that conclusion.
PROF. MACDONELL: I saw little balls of blood which were obviously wet.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you, without making a conclusion as to what the balls were, could you please describe them for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
PROF. MACDONELL: I saw some small red balls that appeared to be a dried liquid that was on some of the fibers on the inside of the opposite side and some of these were photographed, one in particular. But again, it is impossible to see from a single photograph the different depths of focus or depths of field, rather, so we had one that was particularly good, Dr. Lee called my attention to it, and we photographed it. There were several.
MR. NEUFELD: Without reaching the conclusion of what they actually were, did these little red balls have the appearance of blood?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they certainly did.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it?
DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is it?
DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don't know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it's not flat. It's also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done?
DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks--
MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted.
DR. LEE: Can I step down, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, where did this examination of the sock take place?
DR. LEE: It taken place a small conference room at LAPD laboratory.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you tell us, first of all, whose equipment was being used?
DR. LEE: Before I left Seattle, I made a request because I can not bring my own laboratory to L.A. I was in a conference give speech. I have no equipment, no camera, no gears. I said have to provide me with all those equipment, all the gears, glove, anything I need. I was informed, yes, everything you need will be there.
MR. SCHECK: All right. When you got there, what was provided to you?
DR. LEE: When I get there, they provide a microscope, a box of glove.
MR. SCHECK: Now, this microscope, could you describe for us the nature of this microscope?
DR. LEE: This microscope appears to be similar to a stereoscope. Have two oculars, so-called binocular. Will view from the top. The object is putting underneath, and the external light source was also provided.
MR. SCHECK: Now, what was the quality of this microscope?
DR. LEE: It's terrible shape, unacceptable in the scientific standard.
MR. SCHECK: Why do you say that?
DR. LEE: The ocular is moving. The objective shaky. I can't even focus. Looks like need a lot of w--DW--WD 40, something.
MR. SCHECK: What was that?
DR. LEE: Some kind of solution. WD 40, degrease type of solution. I can't even focus. I wasn't provide any microphotographer attachment. In other words, I have yeen ability to take pictures through the microscope.
MR. SCHECK: What's been called photomicrograph?
DR. LEE: Photomicrograph to document what I'm seeing.
MR. SCHECK: What about the power of that microscope?
DR. LEE: Because the adjustment almost impossible to make a true assessment. So impossible for me to make a--such determination.
MR. SCHECK: Can you please describe your activities as depicted on Prosecution 285?
DR. LEE: There are seven lawyers in the room, including my good friend here, Mr. Goldberg, yourself, Bob Blasier, Hodgman, he's another excellent attorney, and attorney Clark, another excellent attorney, good friend, and another attorney.
MR. SCHECK: You're indicating here Mr. Harmon.
DR. LEE: Mr. Harmon. Used to be a friend. Also, there are laboratory people. When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome.
MR. SCHECK: Anything said to you as to instructions at the beginning of this examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What was that?
DR. LEE: I ask what procedure for this examination, what's the rule or regulation, what can I do, what can I not do.
MR. SCHECK: What was said to you?
DR. LEE: An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, "You're the expert. You should know it," in a very mean manner and unprofessional.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please go back to the board, describe what happened next in terms of what's depicted here, the course of the examination.
DR. LEE: The next question I ask, is there any better equipment I can use. The same manner, "That's the best we can give you." I feel little bit upset for this, uncalled for, unprofessional.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you need to ask questions here.
MR. SCHECK: Now, this picture over here, there's an indication--you're putting your arm into the bag up to the elbow. Why were you doing that?
DR. LEE: To exam whether or not have trace material inside the bag.
MR. SCHECK: The second picture shows you with a piece of paper in the bag. What are you doing there?
DR. LEE: I notice some trace material. However, I was instruct cannot be collected. So I put hand into the paper bag.
MR. SCHECK: What were you doing next with respect to the picture on the far right?
DR. LEE: I notice the socks already cut, seven holes from the one sock, three holes from the other sock. It's not in original condition which I understand.
MR. SCHECK: Now, it's not depicted on this board, but another photograph has been shown in this courtroom of you holding socks up to a light for examination.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Can you explain why you were doing that?
DR. LEE: This is simple basic technique which we use which we call back lighting. You have fabric material, any stain on it, if you lift it up, look, the light shine from the back, it's easily--quickly you can identify potential stain. That's the first, you know, basic technique we instruct student to do.
MR. SCHECK: And incidentally, given the bloodstains that were eventually identified in the sock, if in earlier examination, the criminalist had picked up one of these socks and looked up into the light, would they have been able to visualize a bloodstain if it were there?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
DR. LEE: In theory, should be able to see that. When I pick up the socks, I can see all the stain.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, there's an indication here of moving from one sock to the other sock.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock?
DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time.
MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves?
DR. LEE: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind?
DR. LEE: No question about it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think we're--is there anything else of note on this board?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that?
DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure?
DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It's no longer its virgin state.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net?
DR. LEE: I wasn't provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn't matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, is there anything else of interest depicted on this board with respect to your examination on February 16th before we move to the Defense board?
DR. LEE: Yes. Because the difficulty of this microscope, I start using magnifying lens to exam. A magnifying lens can only go to four times. Not really great magnification. I look at the microscope. Yes, I can see some reddish stain which resemble to blood. However, if I can not focus onto the surface, I'm not sure. As I scientist, if anything I'm not sure, I don't want to come to this courtroom to testify.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, as you were conducting this examination, what was your--and you indicated that began around 12:40?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: What was your understanding as to when it had to end? DR. LEE: Has to be ended before 1:30.
MR. SCHECK: Move to the next board?
DR. LEE: No. Not yet. I haven't finished.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. You have a--
THE COURT: Well, who's doing the examination here, Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, call your attention to the picture in the bottom right-hand column, "Turns inside out." Can you explain the significance of that?
DR. LEE: I want to see both side of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Why is that important?
DR. LEE: The out--exterior surface and interior surface, when you made transfer, you should see both side, try to understand the nature or mechanism of any of those transfer.
MR. SCHECK: With respect to the bottom left-hand photograph, could you describe what's going on there?
DR. LEE: I'm taking pictures. However, only this not a photomicrograph, just a regular picture. In addition, I put a ruler on top of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Why did you put a ruler there?
DR. LEE: To show the dimension of this cutting.
MR. SCHECK: Any other pictures that would assist you in describing the next board that's on the Prosecution's board?
DR. LEE: The ruler of this and that is a two different rulers.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, these are--and what are these rulers?
DR. LEE: The ruler--I carry a lot of rulers. As matter of fact, like a business card. A lot of people collect my rulers or usual, after I exam, just pass away, give it to someone. In this day, I give quite a few ruler to people in the room.
MR. SCHECK: So these are two different rulers? DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now turning to--I forget the number.
THE COURT: 1353.
MR. SCHECK: 1353.
MR. SCHECK: Could you describe for us what these photographs are on 1353?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Concerning the examination you did on February 16th, 1995.
DR. LEE: This board consist of nine pictures, three columns. Column 1, picture no. 1 depicts a portion of view of this brown paper bag, numerous writing on this brown paper bag, initials, numbers, tape, which indicative numerous examination already performed. Second photograph depicts an envelope appear to be from Department of Justice. This envelope also have initials and writings and different date, which again consistent with this envelope being open, socks being exam. The last picture of this first column is an overall view when I took the content out. Consists of two socks, two little subterfuge tubes. Inside of subterfuge tube appear to be little fabric material remain in those tubes (Indicating). Column no. 2 depicts the socks--
MR. GOLDBERG: Narrative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Depicts socks 13-A, an overall view, shows the socks with my ruler. On the socks, I notice some trace material adhere on the socks. I did not remove it. Also, I notice there cutting. One of the cutting have blood-like stain on the periphery area. There are some reddish smear on the other side of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, let me stop you right there. Would you say that this photograph is what is 13-A, right?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And this is the cutout from the ankle stain area, 13-A?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is--the cut-out section was the material that was used to do RFLP typing by the Department of Justice and cellmark that got RFLP results consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you've indicated that on what has been characterized in previous testimony as surface no. 3--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --that you saw reddish stain?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you put that in your notes?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Why not?
DR. LEE: I can not document. I can not prove the existence of it. Therefore, I did not put down.
MR. SCHECK: And you can't do that because?
DR. LEE: Because I don't have a--equipment capable to do a close-up photomicrograph documentation.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please move on to the column 13-B.
DR. LEE: Column 13-B shows the other socks, overall view picture. It's the first frame. Next picture shows the three cutting on the socks, some marking on the socks. The last frame of the socks again shows they are different stain and trace material adhere on the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Anything else of interest with respect to the socks on this board?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: And I'd ask that the next board be put up, which would be marked 13--
THE COURT: 54.
MR. SCHECK: 54? 1354, your Honor, is entitled, "History of socks, item 13, April 2nd, 1995, examination at Taylor's laboratory."
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Deft's 1354 for id = board)
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to examine the socks again on April 2nd, 1995?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And where did this take place?
DR. LEE: This take Mark Taylor's laboratory in California.
MR. SCHECK: And were representatives of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory present?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you were conducting this examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you please describe for us through these photographs the examination.
DR. LEE: The overall picture shows the package April the 2nd when this been transferred to me to exam. Before any cutting, I photograph document, now have more bags, envelopes.
MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that between the time that you examined the sock on February 16th and this examination, that Agent Martz performed the EDTA testing at the FBI?
MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you have an understanding an examination was performed at the FBI prior to your receiving this on April 2nd?
MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Please proceed.
DR. LEE: Examine this envelope, I see FBI labels which indicative this--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: So first paragraph indicates the package.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of your examination in the photographs, can you describe what was done next?
DR. LEE: Next one, after this envelope was cut open, inside contents of envelope, I photograph this envelope again to document the condition. Now have more signatures and initials.
MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph 13-A, 42-A?
DR. LEE: 13-A, because this have different numbering system, I see some locations say 42. So that's why we say parenthesis 42-A. That's one socks, the ankle stain depicts in this photo.
MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, is 42-A the Department of Justice reference to the sock and 13 would be the LAPD item number?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Were there any differences between the cutting as you saw it on April 2nd and the one on February 16th?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What are they?
DR. LEE: I saw this hole being enlarged, additional piece being cut away. Initially, it's a rectangle shape. Now, become irregular jagged edge shape.
MR. SCHECK: Call your attention now to 13-B, parenthesis 42-B photograph. What's that?
DR. LEE: 13-B, 42-B depicts a close-up view, shows that's three holes which been cut from this particular socks.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Call your attention now to a photograph that is called close-up 42-A-1. What is that?
DR. LEE: This because the quashing, which we want to constantly reexam, is relate to this particular stain. This particular stain, which shows a close-up view, shows the surface 1 and surface 3 (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Now, incidentally, what kind of equipment were you using at the time of this examination?
DR. LEE: I use my own microscope with photographic attachment. Also use a light source, which my own light source.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the magnification on that microscope?
DR. LEE: It's approximately seven to 17 times.
MR. SCHECK: And--why does the color change incidentally between the photographs in the middle that are dark and the close-up of 42-A-1 that appears--
DR. LEE: You have an external light source and start reflecting and photograph the document, going to have artificial light source for color.
MR. SCHECK: What is the next photograph in the upper right-hand side labeled, "Close-up exterior surface left side 42-A-1"?
DR. LEE: This one depicts an area here, the periphery surface, one in the photomicrograph, approximately 25 times. Shows where bloodstain on the surface still remain on the surface.
MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph on the bottom right hand?
DR. LEE: The bottom right hand, it's approximately the same magnification. However, shows surface 3, one area of surface 3.
MR. SCHECK: Did you make any observations from this photograph B, surface 3?"
DR. LEE: Surface 3, if we look at this picture around 5:00 o'clock, this location, I see numerous little dot, reddish color blood-like substances.
MR. SCHECK: You actually can see that on the picture entitled close-up interior surface?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Would it be possible to just circle a few of them?
DR. LEE: Yes. (The witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Before we turn to the next--the next board has further close-ups; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else of interest before we move to the next set of close-ups?
DR. LEE: Yes. With this magnification, I can see a different population as a blood-like material. Some appear in a ball shape. Other appear in a crust, flaked type of shape. Some of those flecks, flake appear adhere on the fiber. Other appear to be loosely on the surface.
MR. SCHECK: So those are flakes and balls?
DR. LEE: And crust.
MR. SCHECK: Crust. Any other observations before we move to the next set of close-ups?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Can we have the next board, please? This would be, your Honor?
THE COURT: 1355.
MR. SCHECK: 1355 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, close-up view of bloodstain on item 13-A, (42-A)." (Deft's 1355 for id = board)
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, would you explain to us what these series of six photographs represent?
DR. LEE: The six photograph, the top row, three, represent exterior surface with magnification. The bottom row, three frame of picture, represent the interior surface with magnification.
MR. SCHECK: So the bottom row is what's known as surface 3?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, we previously had, when Professor MacDonell was testifying, two photographs put into evidence, one exhibit no. 1277, and the other one, 1278. Ask you to examine these and tell us if either of these photographs are also on this board.
DR. LEE: Yes. Exhibit no. 1277 represent a view of the 3rd column, top. The landmark is a 2 curvature of fabric showing in the middle portion of this photograph. The second one, which representing this board, the second column, bottom frame, a ball-like reddish stain showing in this location.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And so this photograph, Defendant's 1278, with the circle, the blue circle, that is what Professor MacDonell was referring to as a little red ball?
DR. LEE: Yes. The same location, but this have a higher, bigger enlargement.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, would you please proceed with your description of the examination you performed in terms of these six photographs.
DR. LEE: First row, exterior surface, on the surface, fabric surface, have blood-like stain. Those bloodstain basically distribute on the fabric itself. So these two view represent two different locations. When you enlarge it, you see the socks have gaps, little holes. When you look at the fabric itself, the wave pattern looks very tight. The fabric itself very smooth. It's a non-absorbent type of a fabric. The bloodstain basically sitting on the surface, did not absorb into the fabric itself. These little holes, if you focus through the hole, you can see some reddish stain, blood-like stain went through the hole. Next row of picture depicts the surface 3. Again, we can see those little ball-like, bead-like material. However, it's become very difficult to photograph to--into 70 time. The distance, room for focus getting less and less. So you only can focus and photograph one stain at a time. You can not say take a picture, shows a row of balls. You only can show one. The rest going to be out of focus. This picture shows one of the better representation. Subsequently, I took some other picture, and I see some little ball material in here. In addition, there piece of unknown substances was also found on these socks (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Could you please circle on the photograph to the far--far right-hand corner some of the other little balls that you saw.
DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, altogether, how many little balls did you observe on April 2nd?
DR. LEE: I observed--observed approximately 10.
MR. SCHECK: If--and you say that this observation was made by changing the focus of the microscope?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, why did you just document these two pictures?
DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in order for these red balls to have come to be as they appear on surface no. 3, does this require a transfer between surface 2 and surface 3?
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It not necessary to have a surface 2, surface 3, but surface 1--surface 2 have to be contact surface 3.
MR. SCHECK: So surface 1 has to contact surface 3?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Surface 2 has to contact surface 3. They'd be lying on each other?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the significance of these balls, what does--what does that indicate, the form of those red balls?
DR. LEE: It consistent with this transfer being a liquid stage.
MR. SCHECK: And how does that distinguished from the--you said there were flakings that you had seen in other photographs. What's the difference?
DR. LEE: Those transfer, some could be in liquid stage, did not form a ball, prior to the forming of ball, collect, or due to a secondary transfer from another surface during examination and get transfer.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Professor MacDonell testified that the stain on surface 1 and surface 2 and surface 3 was consistent with a transfer stain starting when the socks were laying on a flat surface and no leg was in the sock. Are you aware of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: That's his testimony. I have nothing to dispute with him.
MR. SCHECK: So you agree?
DR. LEE: I agree.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let me ask you--well, I take it, if a leg is in the sock, you can't have contact between those two surfaces?
DR. LEE: Very difficult to do such a thing.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me ask you about some suggestions that have been made about mechanisms of transfer. Let me ask you to assume that this sock were--was at the crime scene and one of the victims, perhaps Miss Simpson, grabbed the sock. Could that have caused the transfer, assuming there was a leg in the sock?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Before I answer this, the mechanism, manner of transfer, that's two separate thing. Mechanism and manner is different.
MR. SCHECK: Well, could you please explain the difference?
DR. LEE: A mechanism, for example, if the blood goes through this little hole, did not touch the foot surface too, that's a mechanism. Just like a screen window have little holes. When the screen window wet, the stain going to be on top of the screen window. Unless certain force, certain condition, that little drop of a liquid may go through the hole, and subsequently, you have a contact, can soak through and get the formation. That's called mechanism. Manner can be touching with hand, touch with pointer, touch with an ear, touch with a nose. Those manner can be different, can subject to a lot of interpretation and possibilities.
MR. SCHECK: So let me rephrase my question in terms of the manner of transfer.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Assume that these socks were at the crime scene on an individual. If they had been grabbed by one of the victims whose hands were bloody, could that manner of transfer have caused what you see?
DR. LEE: It's hard--
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It's highly unlikely.
MR. SCHECK: Why is that?
DR. LEE: If a grabbing, if both--other side of forefinger touch, I should see both sock have a contact or contact smear. In addition, if somebody's leg is inside of the socks, still, when that cause this manner of mechanism of transfer.
MR. SCHECK: If--ask you--a suggestion has been made that--you're aware that a phenolphtalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, ask you to assume that a phenolphthalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994. Could the application of a swab in a phenolphthalein test to this stain be the mechanism of transfer?
DR. LEE: If a phenolphthalein test, the technique used properly, in other words, not soaking the swab wet to wet, usually just moist the swab, it's not sufficient liquid to redissolve because the contact of the swab to surface should be brief. Shouldn't have that, but I can not rule out all the possibilities. As a scientist, I only can tell you some may be consistent with, some may be high unlikely.
MR. SCHECK: Is this one unlikely?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: This probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I'm not the one did the swabbing.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of the blood crust and the issue of diffusion, does that have some relationship to your opinion that this is an unlikely mechanism of transfer?
DR. LEE: Because here have sufficient amount of blood crust on a surface, in general, we use a dry swab or dry filter paper, which will avoid this potential problem since all those crusts, you probably don't need to rub back and forth hard to cause a transfer.
MR. SCHECK: It has been suggested that if a bloodstain occurred on this sock and then someone was sweating in the socks, that this would cause the stain to dry more slowly and could be the mechanism of transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: That's as to the form of the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Foundation is what it is.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Foundation?
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, let's assume that a bloodstain was deposited on the sock and then 10, 15 minutes later, some--during that 10-, 15-minute period, someone was sweating in the socks and then the socks were taken off. Could that result--could that be a mechanism or manner of transfer that would be consistent with your observations here?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: The bloodstain on the surface still in an intact shape, if a bloodstain dissolves, say, the socks with a lot of sweat should become a diffused pattern. But again, I can not rule out any possibility. May be possible, but unlikely.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it? DR. LEE: It does mean something wrong. If at the beginning first day I have an opportunity to look at the socks, I can give you a really, really close estimation, but since a big hole there, I cannot create or recreate a hole.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, weren't there photographs, though, of the socks before the hole was cut out?
DR. LEE: I was not privileged to have a photograph shows the bloodstain intact.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the point is, is that even with all those things, sometimes we can't do anything more than give a rough estimation; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's talk a little bit about the mechanism of transfer. You've explained what a compression transfer is. Can you just give us a very, very brief additional explanation of that, sir?
DR. LEE: The liquid blood either on an object or already on surface have certain pressure applied to it. I cannot come here again tell you how big the pressure, certain pressure. This liquid transfer onto the surface, that is called compression stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is?
DR. LEE: A swipe you start generally when first moment contact, that probably can be a compression. Then with a lateral movement you--either the surface--receiving surface move or the applying surface move and could be both surface moved. That is called a swipe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LEE: They are two separate definition.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to a forensic scientist, such as yourself, that has some expertise in the area of blood splatter, that is an important distinction, isn't it, between swipe and compression?
DR. LEE: It is important, but sometime again have a gray area. You can't really tell too clearly that is a compression or a swipe. Sometime it is a combination.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if you can make a distinction, that is an important one from--for a forensic scientist, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if Mr. MacDonnell testified that that distinction was not important, would you agree with it?
DR. LEE: I don't know exactly he refer to. If you refer a special situation, that is not wrong. If, say, every case you shouldn't distinguish a compression or a swipe, then it is wrong. Certain situation a compression and swipe may be a combination. That is again each individual have their own opinion and I'm not going to argue with other--everybody entitle, other expert entitled to their opinion. Certain scientific fact should not be argued about it. As far as the opinion, they are entitle give their opinion.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks?
DR. LEE: You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far.
DR. LEE: Surface 1, in order to have that, that is my interpretation now, okay? In order to have somebody touch somebody else socks, the pants and the shoes have to have a separation to expose the surface. The best example I can give to you, have to wear the pants like Michael Jackson. Certain portion of socks have to expose. If I wear my pants and socks like that, if touch, have to touch my pants, not going to be the socks, so that is one condition. The second condition the blood has to be liquid, not coagulate, not dry, has to be in liquid state. Third thing has to have certain pressure. I don't--I cannot tell you how much pressure. Not just a gentle touch.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, having said all that, if the pants are pulled up--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --or if someone is bent over or however it happens, the sock is exposed and someone didn't grab the socks, but touched the sock with a bloody finger, wet bloody finger--
DR. LEE: Has to be single finger.
MR. GOLDBERG: Single finger?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And could it also be a--a result--this transfer, of or consistent with someone wearing that sock and the sock coming up against a bloody object?
DR. LEE: Has to have a pressure in that one location, because we look at that--just that one location and very defined parameter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the answer is yes?
DR. LEE: Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, yeah. If someone come into contact with some pressure with some object that has wet blood on it, you can get that transfer?
DR. LEE: Right.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock?
DR. LEE: Could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that transfer could be hair and trace?
DR. LEE: Also could be biological material.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the socks are wet at the time they are collected?
DR. LEE: If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry?
DR. LEE: If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there?
DR. LEE: I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected.
DR. LEE: Yes, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does packaging at the time that they were collected change the DNA type?
DR. LEE: In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --to the blood on the two socks--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --then we can eliminate some of those mixture problems; is that correct?
DR. LEE: If we have a complete profile maybe we can be able to do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence?
DR. LEE: If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately?
DR. LEE: If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway?
DR. LEE: I only can testify what I see. I saw the picture, there is two socks separate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: Clearly. Before that, I don't know.
DR. LEE: Any type of transfer has--in this situation has to be wet. Still in liquid stage, only have minute transfer. It's not a large amount of blood or blood drop on it. It's little, tiny bead. So I can not rule out say possibilities.
MR. GOLDBERG: The scenario that I just gave you?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be fair to say, as in the case with some of the other photographs, the photographs that you saw of the socks at Rockingham were again second or third generation?
DR. LEE: The picture I--my testimony is first generation, base my own observation, own photograph. The picture provide to me is different picture taken by different peoples.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm talking about the Rockingham picture.
DR. LEE: Rockingham picture is maybe second, maybe third. I don't know how many generation before get to my hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to move on to another topic if we may, and that's to ask you a couple clarifying questions about bindle no. 47. Now, it is your opinion that there was a wet transfer in that bindle; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. That's no doubt in my mind it's a wet transfer.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that that was the best quality photograph you had been able to see prior to this occasion.
DR. LEE: Yes. That's an excellent photo.
MR. SCHECK: See any blood on those socks, Dr. Lee?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: I can not determine any bloodstain on there or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the last part of the answer.
THE COURT: He said he cannot determine any bloodstain on there or not.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine the socks with Professor MacDonell?
DR. LEE: Uh, yes, we did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you see the red balls depicted in photo micrographs that he testified about?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you take those pictures?
DR. LEE: I took those pictures.
MR. SCHECK: Do you agree with the testimony of Professor MacDonell that in terms of the mode of transfer, which I believe was the form of the question on cross-examination, that this--the mode of transfer here with respect to the ankle stain on the sock was side 2 having come into contact with side 3?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Also calls for speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
#373. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#372)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains.
MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day?
MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days.
MR. SCHECK: 7 working days?
MR. SIMS: Approximately.
MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
#374. To: nolu chan (#373)
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
#376. To: misterwhite (#374)
Geez Louise. That entire exchange was a waste of time. Speculation and innuendo isn't evidence. Is that all you got?
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains.
MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day?
MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days.
MR. SCHECK: 7 working days?
MR. SIMS: Approximately.
MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
#377. To: nolu chan (#376)
The jury heard the question, and they and everyone else knew the only possible answer.
#379. To: misterwhite (#377)
MR. SCHECK: Now, the--there are other kinds of precautions that one takes in terms of processing samples for purposes of forensic DNA typing, aside from the ones we've previously reviewed, in terms of which kind of samples one would handle at different times and different places?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's start first with aerosols.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, one kind of aerosol we have already discussed is the kind of spray that can occur when one opens up a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes. If one has not spun it down, that is a concern because you can get liquid accumulating under the top of the cap.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And this would apply also to one of these lavender-topped tubes that contains reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, they are under vacuum, so yes, that is a concern when you open one of those for the first time.
MR. SCHECK: And when you open one of those for the first time, one has to be quite careful about the aerosol of whole blood from the reference tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in pouring that out, let's say, onto one of these paper cards, one has to take great care?
MR. SIMS: Well, one has to be careful about what else is in the laboratory, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, aside from aerosols from liquids, can one have aerosols from dried biological particles?
MR. SIMS: I don't know if they are possibly called aerosols, but you can have, for example, powdered blood, something like that. You have to be concerned about that.
MR. SCHECK: Powdered blood would be small particles of dried blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to take a test-tube that contained blood swatches that had dried on the inside of the test-tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --and then one takes a pipette, holding the test-tube up and scrapes the bloodstains out of the test-tube with the pipette--
THE COURT: Swatches?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: The swatches.
MR. SCHECK: Swatches?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Out of the pipette?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Are you with me?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could that not cause an aerosol of powdered blood to fall on the surface over which the test-tube was held?
MR. SIMS: Well, in my experience, with that kind of a sample you usually see some flakes. It is not as fine a powder but you see more of like a flake, flaky effect.
MR. SCHECK: You could see a flake, but in terms of the dried swatch, could be an aerosol?
MR. SIMS: Again, I'm not sure that is the right term, but if you are talking about airborne particles, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Airborne particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the pipette itself is a flexible instrument?
MR. SIMS: Now by pipette do you mean one of those that has a disposable tip on it or do you mean like a glass--can you--
MR. SCHECK: Glass.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Well, it is not very flexible; it is glass.
MR. SCHECK: Well, one of those thin plastic ones?
MR. SIMS: Oh, okay, yes, those are flexible.
MR. SCHECK: Right, and he can flick particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Especially when you are pulling out of a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So that is another kind of aerosol if--using that definition?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And these are particles of blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: From which nanograms of DNA can be extracted?
MR. SIMS: Well, if these are real small specks, I don't think you could get nanograms.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. SIMS: I mean if you--
MR. SCHECK: Again how many?
MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor, he cut off his answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. Did you finish, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I was going to say if you had a large flake, then that would be nanogram quantities, but not the kind of minute specks that I think you are talking about. Those are not nanogram quantities usually.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's go back to our discussion of specks.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: How small a particle can one get to derive two nanograms of DNA?
MR. SIMS: Well, from that, if it was solid blood, it would be a very small flake, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: When examining biological specimens, is it not an important precaution, to change paper just in examining each item?
MR. SIMS: I think that is an important precaution, yes.
MR. SCHECK: So just so we know what we are talking about, let's say you were examining a blood swatch on a white piece of--what do they call it in labs? Butcher paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: After examining that swatch it would be important to remove the paper from which the swatch came before then examining another swatch on that paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, you wouldn't want to put two swatches on the same piece of paper. I would agree with that.
#381. To: nolu chan (#379)
#386. To: misterwhite (#381)
Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? No? Next subject.
Some months earlier, the defense had hired Dr. John Gerdes to evaluate LAPD crime lab procedures in the year before the case. He concluded the lab was a "cesspool of contamination," and he would testify to that. Gerdes had also discovered that the vials containing the reference samples from Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with Simpson's DNA. That fact and its implications were crucial.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So from looking here at the LAPD typing sheet--now, with respect to item no. 12, is it your understanding, sir, that item no. 12 were--drops in Mr. Simpson's foyer that were the last blood drops collected on June 13?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, he did.
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: These results are consistent with cross-contamination of the 1.2 from item 12 into Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's reference samples.
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant because the 1.2 doesn't have that kind of artifact. And if you see anything on there, that means there's DNA there.
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant.
#389. To: nolu chan (#386)
#395. To: misterwhite (#389)
#396. To: goldilucky (#395)
How can any contaminant with a trace amount not have an effect on the analysis? How is that possible?
#399. To: misterwhite (#396)
#400. To: goldilucky (#399)
"And what would those contaminates be composed of exactly?"
#401. To: misterwhite (#400)
Degradation occurs when the DNA starts to break down due to time, exposure to the elements, or heat. You end up with less and less usable DNA to test. But DNA does not transform itself from one person to another.
#402. To: goldilucky (#401)
"we can actually conclude that the forensics team for the LAPD knew about "time" being that critical factor involved in this DNA breaking down due to heat"
#403. To: misterwhite (#402)
But keep in mind that the DNA breaking down only served to help OJ.
Replies to Comment # 403.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]