Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:319
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 8/21/95
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 06:49:23 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 5484
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995
10:03 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED;
ALSO APPEARING, MATTHEW H. SCHWARTZ,
ESQUIRE, AND RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE,
ON BEHALF OF LAURA HART MC KINNY.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH
HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. NEUFELD, MR. SCHECK,
MR. BLASIER.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR.
GOLDBERG AND MISS LEWIS.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
COUNSEL, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT ON FRIDAY
EVENING, AUGUST THE 18TH, THE COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL,
MR. DOUGLAS, MR. SCHECK, MR. NEUFELD FOR THE DEFENSE, AND MR.
HODGMAN AND MR. YOCHELSON AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION, IN THE COMPANY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, WENT
TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
CONDITIONS WERE SATISFACTORILY ADJUSTED SO THAT THEY WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE CONDITIONS AS THEY WERE ON JUNE THE
12TH, 1994.
AND AFTER APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AT THE CRIME SCENE ON
FRIDAY EVENING, AFTER EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION, COMPARISON OF
PHOTOGRAPHS, MODIFICATION OF LIGHTING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THE
PROSECUTION CHOSE TO WITHDRAW THEIR REQUEST FOR A CRIME SCENE
VIEW AT NIGHTTIME.
AND AS A RESULT THE COURT CANCELLED THE VIEWING THAT
WAS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY EVENING, AUGUST THE 20TH, AND THAT IS MY
RECOLLECTION OF WHAT OCCURRED.
ANY COMMENT AS TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: SUBMITTED?
I JUST WANTED THE RECORD TO REFLECT OUR ACTIVITIES OF
FRIDAY EVENING.
MR. SCHECK: JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THAT THE COURT
MADE EVERY EFFORT TO SUBSTANTIALLY REPLICATE WHAT OCCURRED AND
THE CRITICAL FACTOR WAS THE LIGHT THAT WAS NEAR THE GATE WHERE
THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON LAY, AND ONCE THAT HAD BEEN
REPAIRED, THE DECISION WAS MADE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE PROBLEM BEING IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS REALLY
DIDN'T GIVE US A CLEAR ANGLE OR CLEAR APPRECIATION OF THE ANGLE
OF THAT LIGHT, AND AS WE DISCUSSED ON THE RECORD LAST WEEK,
PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE SPEED OF THE FILM, THE
APERTURE, THE EXPOSURE.
AND SO IT IS HARD FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEMSELVES TO
RECREATE THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED THAT EVENING, SO
THERE WAS A DEFENSE OBJECTION TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN THE
PROSECUTION WITHDREW THEIR REQUEST.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ISSUE?
MR. SCHECK: YES. BUT THE COURT'S CONCERN THAT THE
LIGHTING BE RESTORED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO THE CONDITION AS IT
WAS THAT DAY WAS A WISE ONE, BECAUSE WHEN WE DID DO THAT, I THINK
IT WAS CLEAR TO ALL PARTIES THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
ILLUMINATION ON OUR VISIT LAST FRIDAY EVENING THAN THERE WAS THE
PREVIOUS VISIT, AND THAT WAS MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS
DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN THAT EVENING BY THE POLICE.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU OBJECTED, YOU WON, SO I GUESS THERE
IS NOTHING MUCH MORE TO SAY, IS THERE?
MR. SCHECK: NO, NO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE FACTS
CLEAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANY COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE?
MS. CLARK: ONLY, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, THAT THE NEIGHBOR
WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR TO MS. BROWN INDICATED THAT THE LIGHTING AS
IT EXISTED ON THE NIGHT -- ON THIS LAST FRIDAY NIGHT, WAS
CONSIDERABLY BRIGHTER THAN IT HAD BEEN ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE
12TH, AND HE SAID, ACCORDING TO HIS MEMORY, THAT WAS NOT
REPRESENTATIVE.
DETECTIVE LANGE SIMILARLY INDICATED THAT THE LIGHTING
NO LONGER REPRESENTED ITS CONDITION, THAT IT WAS CONSIDERABLY
BRIGHTER ON FRIDAY NIGHT THAN IT HAD BEEN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SINCE THE COURT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY RECREATE THE
CONDITIONS THEN, I THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE DECISION.
ALL RIGHT.
THIS MORNING THE COURT DIRECTED COUNSEL TO CONFER
WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT WITNESS, DEFENSE WITNESS, WHO IS MR.
RAGLE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND MR. GOLDBERG, YOU ARE HANDLING THAT MATTER?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH MR.
BLASIER AND MR. RAGLE AND DISCUSS THE MATTER YOU NEEDED TO
ADDRESS?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, I DID. I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE
MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT BEFORE WE STARTED, IF I MAY DO SO.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO. 1, YOUR HONOR, MR. BLASIER, I BELIEVE --
AND MAYBE IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION -- HAD TOLD ME THAT MR. RAGLE
WAS NOT GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO ANYTHING THAT RELATED TO THE
NOTES THAT THEY TURNED OVER WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IN
DISCOVERY.
AND I BELIEVE --
THE COURT: WHAT WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
MR. RAGLE'S NOTES?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THEY COVERED A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS.
THE ONLY ONE THAT IS RELEVANT FOR WHAT I'M ABOUT TO
SAY IS NOTES AS TO THE AUGUST 26, '94, BRONCO SEARCH WHICH -- AND
MR. BLASIER COULD PROBABLY GIVE US --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
THERE ARE SOME AUGUST THE 26TH, '94, BRONCO NOTES AND
THAT I BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER LITTLE SKETCH THAT WAS PROVIDED
>FROM A VIEWING IN APRIL OF THE BRONCO.
THE COURT: APRIL, '95?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR, OF THIS YEAR.
AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY TO
THAT BECAUSE OF THE -- EXCUSE ME.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE DATE ON THAT IS MARCH 14TH OF '95.
I DID NOT KNOW HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT THESE
THINGS BECAUSE MR. BLASIER SEEMED TO INDICATE TO ME THAT HE WAS
ONLY GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT HAD TO DO OTHER THAN
THE NOTES.
SO THERE HAS BEEN, WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, A DISCOVERY
VIOLATION HERE IN MY VIEW.
I MEAN, THESE NOTES ARE OLD AND THEY WERE JUST TURNED
OVER TO US VERY RECENTLY.
HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN SAY IN GOOD FAITH
THAT THESE PARTICULAR MATTERS, AS I UNDERSTAND MR. BLASIER'S
OFFER OF PROOF THIS MORNING, WOULD REQUIRE A DELAY AS A SANCTION
AND THEREFORE I'M NOT REQUESTING THAT, BECAUSE THEY -- MR.
BLASIER HAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THE ONLY THING ABOUT THE
BRONCO THAT MR. RAGLE IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO IS WHETHER OR
NOT HE COULD SEE CERTAIN STAINS ON THE DOOR.
AND IF THAT IS TRUE, I CAN'T LEGITIMATELY SAY THAT I
NEED MORE TIME TO PREPARE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF THAT IS
ALL HIS TESTIMONY IS CONFINED TO.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD BE REQUESTING A SANCTION FOR THE
DISCOVERY VIOLATION IN THE WAY OF A JURY ADMONITION, AND THIS
JUST CAME TO MY ATTENTION THIS MORNING, SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I
WAS GOING TO BE ADDRESSING YOUR HONOR ON THIS.
THE SECOND ISSUE IS AS TO THE SCOPE OF MR. RAGLE'S
TESTIMONY. THE PEOPLE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ARGUED TO THE COURT IN A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, CITING THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF
PEOPLE VERSUS KAURISH AT 52 CAL.3D 648. IN FACT, I THINK I
DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT LAST WEEK IN ANOTHER CONTEXT WITH
RESPECT TO MICHELE KESTLER.
THE LANGUAGE SAYING THAT:
"WE AGREE THAT IT IS -- IT WAS NOT MATERIAL TO
ANY ISSUE IN THIS CASE. THE DEFECTIVENESS OF THE EVIDENCE
GATHERING TECHNIQUES IN THIS CASE, IF ANY, IS NOT MEASURED IN
COMPARISON TO OTHER PURPORTEDLY SUPERIOR TECHNIQUES."
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE ISSUE WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE GATHERING TECHNIQUES IS WHAT
TECHNIQUES WERE USED, WERE THOSE TECHNIQUES DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY
SO AS TO UNDERMINE THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE.
LOOKING AT OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
USED OR OTHER HYPOTHETICALS AS TO HOW SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE
GONE ABOUT INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE, WHILE IT MAY BE
INTERESTING, DOES NOT, IN THE WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT:
"ASSIST THE JURY IN DETERMINING TO WHAT EXTENT
THE METHOD EMPLOYED ACTUALLY PRODUCED PROBATIVE ELEMENTS, NOR CAN
IT HELP THE JURY ASSIGN A WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE."
MY UNDERSTANDING OF MR. RAGLE'S TESTIMONY IS THAT HE
WANTS TO TESTIFY TO HOW THE CRIME SCENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
PROCESSED, TECHNIQUES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED, TECHNIQUES THAT
HE IS CRITICAL OF AND SO ON.
AND I JUST THINK THAT THAT KIND OF WIDE-RANGING
INQUIRY INTO THE OVERALL COMPETENCE OF THE CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION IS NOT PROBATIVE, IN LIGHT OF THIS LANGUAGE, UNLESS
IT IS LIMITED AND TIED TO SPECIFICALLY WHAT EFFECT THIS COULD
HAVE HAD ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE PRODUCED IN THIS
TRIAL.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE INTENT, FROM MY
CONVERSATION WITH MR. RAGLE, OF THIS TESTIMONY AND I DON'T THINK
THAT HE IS INTENDING, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE TOLD ME, TO
SAY, OKAY, THE EFFECT OF THIS IS THAT NOW THE DNA RESULTS ARE
LESS RELIABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING, BECAUSE HE IS NOT AN
EXPERT IN DNA ANALYSIS, SO JUST TO SAY, WELL, I DON'T LIKE THE
WAY THAT THEY COLLECT IT, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO TIE IT TO AN
EFFECT, IN MY VIEW AND I THINK IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S
VIEW, IS NOT PROBATIVE AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
SO THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST SOME STRICT LIMITATION ON
HIS TESTIMONY, IF NOT OUT AND OUT PRECLUSION OF HIS TESTIMONY,
DEPENDING ON EXACTLY HOW THEY WANT TO STRUCTURE THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
LET ME FIRST TALK ABOUT THE PURPORTED DISCOVERY
VIOLATION.
THIS IS A -- THIS IS A ONE-PAGE -- ACTUALLY A HALF A
PAGE HANDWRITTEN NOTE ABOUT THE BRONCO WHEN THEY WENT OUT THERE
IN MARCH TO LOOK AT IT.
THERE WAS NO TESTING DONE. MR. RAGLE DID NOTHING
EXCEPT LOOK. THIS IS NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER HINES OR ANY OF THE
OTHER CASES.
HE DOESN'T INTEND TO RELY ON THIS PARTICULAR NOTE.
ALL HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT IS THAT THE SPECKS THAT DENNIS
FUNG IDENTIFIED AS THE SPECKS OF BLOOD THAT MARK FUHRMAN
DESCRIBED CAN'T BE SEEN OR MOST OF THEM CAN'T BE SEEN ONCE THE
DOOR IS OPEN.
THAT IS THE TOTAL OF HIS TESTIMONY ON THAT POINT.
THIS IS NOT EVEN DISCOVERABLE. I THINK IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM LAST
WEEK ANYWAY. IT IS LESS THAN HALF A PAGE.
AS TO HIS TESTIMONY IN GENERAL, UMM, THEY HAVE
PRESENTED THROUGH ALL THEIR WITNESSES OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER THIS
CRIME SCENE OR THESE CRIME SCENES WERE PROCESSED APPROPRIATELY OR
COMPETENTLY.
ALL MR. RAGLE IS HERE TO DO IS TO TESTIFY AS AN
EXPERT ON CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES, TO TESTIFY AS TO
WHETHER THE TECHNIQUES USED IN THIS CASE WERE ACCEPTABLE OR NOT,
WERE COMPETENT OR NOT.
THAT IS ALL.
IT IS REBUTTING THE OPINIONS GIVEN BY ALL OF THEIR
WITNESSES ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE WAY THEY DID CERTAIN
THINGS.
OBVIOUSLY IF HE TESTIFIES THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO
PUT WET SWATCHES IN A PLASTIC -- IN A PLASTIC ENVELOPE, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO EXPRESS THAT WITHOUT EXPRESSING WHAT IS THE RIGHT
WAY -- HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO TO
PROTECT THE EVIDENCE, TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE.
I DON'T INTEND TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON TECHNIQUES
THAT WEREN'T USED IN THIS CASE. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HIS
TESTIMONY IS THE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE USED IN THIS CASE OR
WHETHER THEY WERE ACCEPTABLE OR NOT FROM A FORENSIC OR
INVESTIGATIVE STANDPOINT.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, TO RESPOND TO THE LAST ISSUE FIRST, IT
MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THE COURT SIMPLY HAS TO RULE ON A QUESTION
BY QUESTION BASIS AS TO MR. RAGLE'S -- THE PROPRIETY OF MR.
RAGLE'S ANSWERS, BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNSEL THAT AT LEAST
IN THE ONE HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE THAT HE GAVE, IF HE IS SAYING IT
IS IMPROPER TO PUT ITEMS IN A PLASTIC BAG AND WHAT KIND OF EFFECT
THAT THAT COULD HAVE, THAT THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE SUBJECT -- A
PROPER SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY.
BUT THEN IF YOU ASK THE NEXT QUESTION, WELL, WHAT
OTHER TECHNIQUES CAN BE USED, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE CROSSING THE
BOUNDARY INTO THE TERRITORY THAT I THINK KAURISH PROHIBITS, SO
MAYBE THIS IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF SIMPLY TRYING TO STATE WHAT
OUR POSITION IS UP FRONT.
AND MAYBE YOUR HONOR DOES SIMPLY HAVE TO RULE ON A
QUESTION BY QUESTION BASIS ON THOSE KIND OF ISSUES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG: AS TO THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION, IF I MAY,
YOUR HONOR, AND I'M SORRY BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW THIS ISSUE WAS
GOING TO COME UP UNTIL LITERALLY A FEW MINUTES PRIOR TO
ADDRESSING IT IN COURT, BUT ON THIS ONE PAGE, IT IS AS COUNSEL
REPRESENTED, A PAGE INDICATING HIS OBSERVATIONS AND THERE IS WHAT
PURPORTS TO BE A LITTLE SKETCH OF THE BRONCO ON IT, SO IT CLEARLY
IS A REPORT OF OBSERVATIONS OF EXPERTS THAT IS DISCOVERABLE.
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION
THAT I FAILED TO IS THAT THIS ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE WERE
TWELVE PHOTOS AND THEY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC NUMBERS, AND I SEEM TO
RECALL THAT WHEN THIS OCCURRED MR. RAGLE DID TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS,
AND I DON'T HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS, SO THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE
A FORM OF DOCUMENTATION OF AN EXPERT OF AN OBSERVATION OF
EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
MR. GOLDBERG, WERE YOU PRESENT FOR THIS VIEWING?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE UP TO.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO -- IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET INTO THE CONSPIRACY
MODE SOMETIMES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON, BECAUSE THEY WERE
LOOKING AT LITTLE CRACKS IN DOORS, SO I JUST THOUGHT, THESE GUYS
ARE MESHUGGE AND DIDN'T KNOW -- DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE UP TO,
SO I WASN'T PARTICULARLY WATCHING THAT CAREFULLY WHAT THEY WERE
OBSERVING.
MR. SCHECK: HE HAS GOT TO PRONOUNCE THAT WORD BETTER.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?
MR. SCHECK: MESHUGGENA.
MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS LOS ANGELES. IT IS AN L.A.
PRONUNCIATION.
THE COURT: YEAH, BUT FOR SOMEBODY THAT IS A GOLDBERG, MR.
GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH, WELL --
THE COURT: HAVING GROWN-UP IN THE LOS FELIZ DISTRICT, I
HAVE HEARD THAT EXPRESSION BEFORE.
MR. GOLDBERG: AT ANY RATE, I DON'T HAVE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.
MR. BLASIER: WE DON'T INTEND TO USE ANY OF THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS STILL DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT WAS DONE.
MR. BLASIER: IT IS REAL EVIDENCE. WE ALSO ARE NOT USING
ANY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BLASIER: THEY WERE THERE. THERE WERE SEVERAL POLICE
OFFICERS THERE. THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN ANY PICTURES THEY WANTED
TO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I BELIEVE AS MR. GOLDBERG INDICATED IN HIS LAST
COMMENT, THAT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT MR. RAGLE'S TESTIMONY
WILL GO INTO OTHER TECHNIQUES AND HOW FAR THE COURT WILL ALLOW IS
REALLY A QUESTION BY QUESTION ISSUE BY ISSUE SUBJECT BY SUBJECT
DETERMINATION THAT THE COURT HAS TO MAKE, SO I TAKE THAT AS
SIMPLY THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS THE COURT TO BE ON NOTICE TO
EXPECT THOSE ISSUES AS THEY COME UP.
I TAKE THAT AS A PREMATURE OBJECTION.
AS TO THE PURPORTED DISCOVERY VIOLATION, I FIND NO
VIOLATION SINCE THE PROSECUTION WAS IN FACT PRESENT AT THE TIME
THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE. THEY HAD EQUAL ACCESS TO THOSE
OBSERVATIONS, THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS.
THEY DO HAVE THE NOTES IN PLENTY OF TIME TO PREPARE
FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. RAGLE.
NONE OF THIS IS, TO MY RECOLLECTION, GOING TO BE
ROCKET SCIENCE, SO I THINK WE CAN PROCEED.
ALL RIGHT.
LASTLY, COUNSEL, I SPENT SOME TIME OVER THE WEEKEND
DEALING WITH THE OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING THE FUHRMAN TAPES,
SO-CALLED, AND I HAD GREAT DIFFICULTY DEALING WITH IT.
AND MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, I WILL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: TELL ME WHAT TO EXPECT.
MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT TO EXPECT.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. AS THE COURT KNOWS, I WAS
OUT OF TOWN.
DID YOUR HONOR RECEIVE A REDACTED COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL TAPES TURNED OVER BY MESSERS. SCHWARTZ AND REGWAN? IS
THAT CORRECT?
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR HONOR WAS NOT GIVEN THE
FIRST 48 PAGES; IS THAT CORRECT?
THE COURT: APPARENTLY SOMETHING WAS GIVEN TO ME THIS
MORNING.
MR. COCHRAN: I BROUGHT THAT DOWN FOR YOU THIS MORNING, AND
LET ME SEE IF I CAN EXPLAIN THE CONFUSION AND TELL YOU WHERE WE
ARE AND HOW WE STRAIGHTENED IT OUT.
OF COURSE THE COURT IS AWARE THAT WE
OVEROPTIMISTICALLY SAID WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET YOU A VERBATIM
WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PRETTY QUICKLY.
THAT IS NOW FINISHED AND BY THE END OF THE DAY MR.
DOUGLAS WILL WALK THROUGH THOSE DOORS WITH HOPEFULLY A REDACTED
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT AND AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT IS KEY TO OUR
TRANSCRIPT.
WITH REGARD TO MISS MC KINNY'S TRANSCRIPT, SOME OF
THE PAGES ARE OFF. WE HAD DISCOVERED THIS IN NORTH CAROLINA.
ALSO, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THE FIRST TAPES HAVE
BEEN -- THE FIRST TAPE HAD BEEN TAPED OVER AND SHE HAD -- THE
FIRST 48 PAGES APPARENTLY YOU HADN'T BEEN GIVEN, AND I DISCOVERED
THAT LAST NIGHT WHEN I RETURNED AND I GAVE THOSE TO YOUR HONOR'S
CLERK THIS MORNING.
THE COURT: WELL, I SPENT SEVERAL HOURS THIS WEEKEND. AT
FIRST IT WAS SO INCOHERENT I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING
ON, BUT I FIGURED SINCE TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE I OUGHT TO AT
LEAST TRY TO MAKE SOME SENSE OF IT.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE, SURE.
THE COURT: AFTER GOING THROUGH YOUR OFFER OF PROOF AND
TRYING TO CORRELATE IT WITH THE TAPE AND THE TRANSCRIPT, I
COULDN'T DO IT, AND I DON'T THINK IT IS MY OBLIGATION GOING
THROUGH TWELVE HOURS OF TAPE LOOKING FOR PARTICULAR EXCERPTS.
MR. COCHRAN: IT CERTAINLY ISN'T. THESE ITEMS ARE ON THE
TAPES AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE ABLE TO HEAR THEM.
AND I HAVE ASKED TODAY MESSERS. JERRY UELMEN, BAILEY,
DOUGLAS, ARE KEYING THE OFFER OF PROOF TO THE TAPES AND TO THE
FIRST TRANSCRIPT, OF COURSE, WHICH IS NOT ON TAPE WHICH SHE DID,
AND YOU WILL HAVE THEM BY FIVE O'CLOCK.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE
CLEANED UP ALL BUT THREE OF THE TAPES FOR BACKGROUND NOISE AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT BY TEN O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING THE REMAINING
THREE WILL BE CLEANED UP, SO YOU WILL HAVE THOSE, SO YOU WILL
HAVE THE -- EVERYTHING.
THE COURT: I WILL HAVE CLEAN CASSETTES AND A COHERENT
TRANSCRIPT AND AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT IS KEYED TO THE --
MR. COCHRAN: KEY TO OUR VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: BY FIVE O'CLOCK AND THE REMAINING THREE
TRANSCRIPTS WILL BE HERE BY TEN O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.
OKAY.
AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THE COURT HAD TO GO THROUGH
ANYTHING THAT CAUSED YOU ANY PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU GOT A FLAVOR
FOR IT, BUT WE WANT IT TO BE SO THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY
WHERE THEY ARE KEYED DIRECTLY IN AND WE WILL HAVE IT.
AND WHILE WE ARE ABOUT THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND
OUT, JUST FOR A MATTER OF SCHEDULING WITNESSES, HOW YOU PLAN TO
DO THAT.
LET'S ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE THAT -- THE OFFER OF PROOF
AND THE TRANSCRIPTS AND EVERYTHING IN IT, YOU WILL HAVE OUR BRIEF
-- WE FILED A BRIEF REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT THIS
MORNING.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR HONOR'S PLEASURE?
WHEN WILL WE GET TO THE 402 HEARING, GIVEN THAT
SCHEDULE THAT I JUST LAID OUT?
THE COURT: WELL, SEE, THAT IS THE DILEMMA, BECAUSE I HAD
HOPED TO SPEND THIS WEEKEND DOING ALL OF THAT, REVIEWING THE
TAPES AND COMPARING IT AND THEN HEARING ARGUMENT AND CONSIDERING
THE PROSECUTION'S OBJECTIONS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE THE
JURY TIME.
MR. COCHRAN: SURE.
THE COURT: BUT NOW IT APPEARS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO USE
COURT TIME AND MY OWN AFTER HOURS TIME TO DO THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL BE READY AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO HAVE WITNESSES
TO FILL IN AT LEAST UNTIL YOU REACH THE POINT WHERE YOU SAY,
OKAY, LET'S DO THIS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE COURT
REPORTER, PLEASE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE WITNESSES AND OUR
SCHEDULING TOGETHER.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
WITH RESPECT TO THE COURT'S ORDER WE FILED TODAY
CONCERNING THE DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING THOSE PASSAGES ON THE
TAPES, I SHOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE
FIRST ENTITLED SEGMENT OF THE COURT'S ORDER, "RACIAL EPITHETS,"
ALL OF THOSE PORTIONS ARE NOT ON TAPE. THAT TAPE HAS BEEN
DESTROYED.
ALL WE HAVE IS LAURA MC KINNY'S TRANSCRIPT,
QUOTE-UNQUOTE. IT IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THE SAME PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE GOING
TO FIND WITH THE INCIDENTS OF MISCONDUCT.
THE COURT: WELL, WHY DON'T WE SAVE THIS ARGUMENT.
MS. CLARK: I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE. I'M JUST INFORMING THE
COURT THAT YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN THE TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE THERE
IS NO TAPE.
THE COURT: THAT GOES TO WEIGHT THAT I HAVE TO ACCORD IT TO
SEE WHETHER IT IS TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE.
MS. CLARK: ALL I AM ALERTING THE COURT OF IS IF YOU ARE
LISTENING FOR THIS ON TAPE, YOU WILL NOT HEAR IT. NONE OF THIS
IS ON TAPE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT, WE
HAVE PREPARED VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF THE ALL OF THE TAPES THAT
EXIST AND WE AGREED WITH THE DEFENSE, I AGREED WITH MR. BAILEY
LAST WEEK, TO FURNISH THEM A COPY OF OUR TRANSCRIPT IF THEY WILL
GIVE US A COPY OF THEIRS, AND WE AGREED ON THAT.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN JUST REITERATED THAT.
MS. CLARK: I COULD ALSO REQUEST WHATEVER THE DEFENSE IS
GIVING TO THE COURT, THEY FURNISH A COPY OF THAT ALSO.
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL DO THAT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S -- IS THIS ON THE TAPES ISSUE?
MR. SCHECK: NO, THIS IS ON THE DISCOVERY OF DR. LEE. YOU
CAN TAKE THIS UP NOW, YOU CAN TAKE THIS UP --
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE FUHRMAN TAPES FIRST.
WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR MISS MC KINNY HERE WHO FAXED TO
THE COURT AND I THINK COUNSEL A LETTER INDICATING THEIR CONCERN
THAT TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE TAPE-RECORDINGS HAVE LEAKED OUT.
GENTLEMEN.
MR. SCHWARTZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. SCHWARTZ, GOOD MORNING.
MR. SCHWARTZ: GOOD MORNING.
WE ARE HERE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT LETTER THAT WE WROTE
TO YOU. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE PERSISTING VIOLATIONS OF
THE COURT ORDER.
AS THE COURT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE, LAST FRIDAY
MORNING THE LOS ANGELES TIMES PRINTED AN ARTICLE THAT CONTAINED A
VERBATIM PORTION OF OUR CLIENT'S PROTECTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
AND FURTHERMORE, THE REUTERS NEWS ORGANIZATION
TRANSMITTED OVER THE WIRES ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR EVERYBODY TO
SEE ADDITIONAL PORTIONS VERBATIM OF OUR CLIENT'S PROTECTED
MATERIAL.
THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW THE SOURCE OF THAT? IS THERE ANY
COURT DOCUMENT THAT MAY BE THE SOURCE OF THAT?
MR. SCHWARTZ: WE SUSPECT THAT IT COULD HAVE ORIGINATED
>FROM THE DEFENSE'S OFFER OF PROOF, BUT WE ARE NOT SURE, BUT THE
GIVING OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA AT THIS POINT IN TIME,
ESPECIALLY SINCE NOTHING HAS YET EVEN BEEN RULED ADMISSIBLE, IS
OBVIOUSLY IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THIS COURT'S PROTECTIVE
ORDER.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN THREE SETS OF OUR CLIENT'S
MATERIAL THAT HAVE BEEN DISSEMINATED DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THE ORIGINALS WENT TO THE COURT AND WE TENDERED A COMPLETE COPY
TO THE PROSECUTION AND A COMPLETE COPY TO THE DEFENSE.
THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATING THE
COURT ORDER ARE HERE TODAY, AND THIS COURT SHARES WITH OUR CLIENT
A VESTED INTEREST IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS COURT ORDER.
OBVIOUSLY OUR CLIENT IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING HER
PROPRIETY INTEREST.
BUT THIS COURT HAS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
CHALLENGED TO ITS AUTHORITY THAT HAS OCCURRED.
IF THIS CHALLENGE DOES NOT GO UNANSWERED, THEN
PERHAPS THE DOMINION OF THE COURT COULD BE THREATENED AND THE
FORCE AND EFFECT OF FUTURE RULINGS OF THIS COURT COULD BE
AFFECTED.
AND THEREFORE WE ARE ASKING THIS COURT TO REQUEST THE
ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIONS AND
TRY TO FIND THE SOURCE OF THESE LEAKS, AND IF THEY ARE
UNSUCCESSFUL, BY PERHAPS CLOSE OF BUSINESS WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY,
WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
WHEREIN MR. REGWAN AND I WILL BE ABLE TO CONDUCT DIRECT
EXAMINATION OF THE JOURNALISTS WHO CARRIED THESE STORIES
THROUGHOUT THEIR ORGANIZATIONS.
AND THE NEWS SHIELD, THE SHIELD LAW WILL NOT POSE A
PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE SHIELD LAW WILL NOT PROTECT
OFFICERS OF THE COURT FROM VIOLATING A COURT ORDER.
IF THE SHIELD LAW IS RAISED, UMM, THEN IT WOULD
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPINGE ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THIS JUDICIARY
AND SO THE SHIELD LAW WILL BE INAPPLICABLE.
WE HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH. IT WILL BE A VERY EASY
PROCEEDING AND WE WILL JUST BRING IN A COUPLE OF REPORTERS POINT
BLANK AND ASK WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION FROM, AND THEY
WILL BE ABLE TO TELL US.
THE COURT: MR. SCHWARTZ, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE DEFENSE
OFFER OF PROOF THAT WAS FILED LATE LAST WEEK?
MR. SCHWARTZ: NO, I DON'T, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT WAS
FILED UNDER SEAL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MY STAFF COMPARED THAT OFFER OF PROOF WITH THE QUOTED
PASSAGE FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE.
I DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE MYSELF; HOWEVER, THEY
SHOWED ME HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS AND THEY APPEARED TO COME FROM THE
OFFER OF PROOF.
WHAT I WILL DO, MR. SCHWARTZ, I WILL -- FIRST OF ALL,
I'M GOING TO DIRECT COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES TO FILE ALL DOCUMENTS
WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE WITH THE COURT UNDER SEAL.
SECONDLY, MR. SCHWARTZ, I'M GOING TO DIRECT THAT THE
CLERK OF THE COURT GIVE YOU A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE OFFER OF
PROOF SO YOU CAN COMPARE IT WITH THE NEWS LEAKS AND WE WILL SEE
IF WE CAN AT LEAST PARE DOWN WHAT THE SOURCE -- PROBABLE SOURCE
IS.
MR. SCHWARTZ: OKAY.
THE COURT: THEN WE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE.
MR. SCHWARTZ: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REAPPEAR AFTER I HAVE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE OFFER OF PROOF?
THE COURT: YES. YOU CAN NOTIFY THE COURT OF YOUR POSITION
BY MAIL, AS WE ARE GOING TO BE BUSY WITH OTHER WITNESSES.
MR. SCHWARTZ: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE START WITH MR. RAGLE?
MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE OTHER THING, YOUR HONOR.
I JUST GOT A CALL FROM MR. DOUGLAS ABOUT DR.
REICHARDT. HE IS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW MORNING AND WE CANNOT
GET HIM HERE TODAY AT ALL, NEITHER HE OR HIS LAWYERS.
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WE ARE BEING OPTIMISTIC IF WE
THINK WE ARE GOING TO FINISH WITH MR. RAGLE TODAY.
MR. COCHRAN: THAT WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM.
MR. DARDEN: I WILL BE READY TOMORROW.
MR. SCHECK: I WANT TO BRING UP THE DR. LEE MATTER MAYBE
AFTER WE BREAK OR MAYBE JUST BEFORE WE BEGIN IN THE AFTERNOON TO
SET THE DISCOVERY ISSUE STRAIGHT. WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
THAT THIS MORNING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU HANDED TO THE COURT, MR. SCHECK, A NUMBER OF
COPIES OF YOUR UPCOMING PHOTO BOARDS.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
THE COURT: MOST OF WHICH LOOK VERY FAMILIAR TO THE COURT.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
YOUR HONOR, THE -- WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT DR. LEE
I GUESS OVER CLOSE TO A MONTH AGO FILED A REPORT IN THIS CASE.
WE HAVE TURNED OVER ALL THE NOTES. WE TURNED OVER TO THE
PROSECUTION XEROXED COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT ALBANY AND
OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD FROM DR. LEE, AND
PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THESE BOARDS, SOME OF WHICH, MANY OF WHICH ARE
THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS.
I SHOULD NOTE, WITH RESPECT TO THE ALBANY
PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT THEY HAD A PHOTOGRAPHER AND THEY HAD A WITNESS
ON THE SCENE FOR EVERYTHING THAT WAS EXAMINED IN ALBANY, SO THEY
HAVE THEIR OWN COPIES OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE
PICTURES.
IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS ONE, I BELIEVE ONE, MAYBE TWO,
BUT ONE MORE BOARD THAT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THOSE COPIES WHICH I
KNOW IS ARRIVING TODAY THAT IS JUST A BLOW-UP OF OTHER PICTURES
THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE BOARDS AND OTHER PICTURES THAT
THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD AVAILABLE TO IT.
THE -- MR. GOLDBERG THIS MORNING -- NOW, THE OTHER
THING, THAT THERE WAS MENTION OF ACCESS TO DR. LEE AND
OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK TO HIM AND FIND OUT ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY AND
THAT WAS BROACHED BY MR. HODGMAN AND OTHERS AT THE CRIME SCENE.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW IS THAT THE PROSECUTION -- WE
HAVE A DIFFERENCE -- AND I WILL JUST CHALK IT UP TO
MISUNDERSTANDING -- THAT I HAD COMMUNICATED TO MR. GOLDBERG THAT
WHEN THE PROSECUTION TALKED WITH DR. LEE, BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS
AVAILABLE TO TALK WITH THE OTHER SIDE, THAT IS HIS POLICY, IT IS
A STANDING POLICY, THAT I WANTED TO BE ON THE LINE SO THAT WE
COULD HAVE A RECORD OF IT.
HE DOESN'T RECALL IT AND THAT IS FINE. I DON'T WANT
-- I DON'T WANT TO DISPUTE THAT. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE.
THEY DID, I BELIEVE, SPEAK -- THEY SENT SOME
QUESTIONS TO HIM. HE WAS IN INDONESIA. THEY SPOKE WITH HIM
ABOUT TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO, THEN --
THE COURT: THAT MAN SURE GETS AROUND, DOESN'T HE?
MR. SCHECK: HE DOES.
THEN THE -- MR. HODGMAN AND MR. GOLDBERG, I BELIEVE,
HAD A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH HIM, EITHER SATURDAY OR
SUNDAY, THEY CAN TELL YOU BEST.
I KNOW FROM DR. LEE THAT --
THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK --
MR. SCHECK: -- PETER DE FOREST, THE REBUTTAL WITNESS, WENT
OVER THOSE BOARDS WITH HIM ON SUNDAY.
THE COURT: WAIT. RATHER THAN TELL ME ALL THIS HISTORY,
WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE?
MR. SCHECK: THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY ARE SAYING TO US THIS
MORNING THAT UNTIL -- THAT THEY DEMAND PHOTO PICTURES OF EVERY
PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE TURNED OVER IN THE XEROXED MATERIALS.
WE ONLY HAVE ONE SET OF THE ALBANY PHOTOGRAPHS. I
OFFERED TO LET THEM HAVE ANY PARTICULAR ALBANY PHOTOGRAPH THAT
THEY WANTED.
I HAVE FOR THEM PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL PICTURES ON THE
BOARDS, PLUS THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE BOARDS, PLUS DR. DE FOREST
SPENT FOUR HOURS WITH DR. LEE IN HIS HOME YESTERDAY GOING OVER
THE BOARDS AND GOING OVER HIS TESTIMONY, AND DR. DE FOREST IS
THEIR EXPERT AND THEIR REBUTTAL WITNESS.
MORE THAN THIS WE CAN'T DO. I CAN ENDEAVOR TO TRY --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: THOSE ARE COLOR XEROXED AND THEY ARE TERRIFIC,
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IT IS THAT THEY WANT BY WAY OF
DISCOVERY.
I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH RULES IN THIS
JURISDICTION EXTENSIVELY, I GUESS, BUT THE ONLY OTHER THING THEY
COULD POSSIBLY WANT IS FOR ME TO OPEN UP MY FILES AND SHOW THEM
THE ENTIRE WORK PRODUCT.
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYER. THEY HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THIS
MAN, TO SEE EVERY PICTURE, TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING HE IS GOING TO
SAY PRIOR TO HIS TESTIMONY, GO OVER IT WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB.
THE COURT: SO ALL I NEED TO DO --
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU.
THE COURT: ALL I NEED TO DO IS ASK MR. GOLDBERG WHAT MORE
DO YOU WANT?
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I WANT MORE, YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD
HAVE LIKED IT MUCH, MUCH EARLIER.
AND I AM NOT PREPARED TO GIVE AN IN-DEPTH ARGUMENT ON
THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY NOTES AS TO DATES
AND WHEN I RECEIVED THINGS.
THE GENERALITY IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS DUMPED AN
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO HENRY LEE
WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS RELATING TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
EXAMINATIONS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, AND BASICALLY HIS
TESTIMONY IS GOING TO COVER THE GAMUT OF ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT
CAME FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT SOME POINT A MUCH MORE
EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT, OBVIOUSLY IT WILL HAVE TO BE IN THE VERY NEAR
FUTURE, BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY SANCTIONS, BECAUSE IT HAS IMPAIRED
ON OUR CAPACITY TO BE READY.
AND I'M SIMPLY NOT PREPARED TO SAY NOW, WELL, THIS
REPORT CAME FROM AN EXAMINATION IN FEBRUARY AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE
IT UNTIL JUST TWO WEEKS AGO. I JUST CAN'T DO THAT AT THIS POINT,
BUT I WILL BE ABLE TO.
THE COURT: WHEN?
MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL TRY TO GET IT TOGETHER AS SOON AS I'M
OUT OF COURT ON MR. RAGLE.
YOU KNOW, I WORKED ALL DAY ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY ON
HENRY LEE AND TRYING TO PREPARE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY WITH A
GREAT QUANTITY OF MATERIAL.
NOW, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE BEING REFERRED TO
COUNSEL HAS TOLD COME FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT EXAMINATIONS.
SOME OF THEM WERE FROM THE ALBANY TRIP, SOME OF THEM ARE FROM THE
LAPD EXAMINATIONS.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. GOLDBERG, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING
YOU, BUT IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT THIS
POINT, WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE JURY WITH MR. RAGLE, AT LEAST
GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO DO TODAY.
YOU AND YOUR OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE ASSISTING YOU CAN
PUT TOGETHER THE ITEMS AND WE CAN TAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME.
MR. GOLDBERG: THE ONLY REASON IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO
ADDRESS THIS NOW IS ON THE VERY LIMITED ISSUE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS,
SETTING EVERYTHING ELSE ASIDE.
I ASKED COUNSEL FOR THE ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND HE
SAID THAT THE COLOR XEROXES ARE SUFFICIENT. THAT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO RESOLVE NOW BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE THEM SOME
TIME TO PROVIDE THOSE TO ME IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THE PEOPLE
ARE ENTITLED TO THEM, SO THE COURT MIGHT WANT TO DECIDE THAT NOW
SO THAT THEY CAN GET THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TO ME AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
NOW, THE REASON WHY WE BELIEVE WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE
ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS, AS OPPOSED TO XEROX COPIES, COLOR XEROX
COPIES, IS THAT IN THIS CASE, AS THE COURT KNOWS, WE HAVE PUT
PHOTOGRAPHS UP ON THE ELMO AND VERY FREQUENTLY THE DEFENSE WILL
POINT OUT TO SOME LITTLE SPECK SOMEWHERE OR THE ABSENCE OF SOME
SPECK SOMEWHERE OR STAPLE HOLES IN THE CASE OF THAT EXHIBIT, AND
HINGE A MASSIVE THEORY OF THE CASE AROUND THE EXISTENCE OR
NONEXISTENCE OF THAT SPECK.
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE PURPORTEDLY EXAMINATION QUALITY
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THINGS LIKE IMPRESSIONS OF THINGS LIKE HAIR AND
TRACE MATERIAL IN SOIL AND THE LIKE.
THE COURT: HOW MANY PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY, AND COUNSEL
COULD GIVE YOU A MORE ACCURATE ESTIMATE THAN I COULD,
APPROXIMATELY I WOULD SAY FIFTY PAGES OF DISCOVERY CONTAINING
PHOTOGRAPHS AND EACH PAGE CONTAINS TWO OR THREE PHOTOS AND MR.
SCHECK PERHAPS HAS QUANTIFIED THAT.
MR. SCHECK: I CAN GET TO THE POINT. MAYBE WE CAN SOLVE
THIS.
EVERY PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE INTEND INTRODUCE INTO
EVIDENCE AND THAT IS ON THOSE BOARDS THEY CAN HAVE.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE DISPUTE IS THAT
WE GAVE THEM MORE, WE GAVE THEM PHOTOGRAPHS FROM ALBANY -- AND I
THANK THEM FOR PRONOUNCING ALBANY AS ALBANY -- WE GAVE THEM THAT.
SO NOW WHAT HE IS SAYING IS I WANT PHOTOCOPIES, NOT
XEROXED COPIES OF ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO INTRODUCE THAT YOU GAVE TO US WHICH YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
NOW, I ONLY HAVE ONE SET OF THOSE AT THE PRESENT TIME
IN TERMS OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND I GAVE HIM XEROXED COPIES OF IT AND I
HAVE SAID TO HIM --
THE COURT: THESE ARE COLOR XEROX COPIES?
MR. SCHECK: THESE ARE COLOR XEROX COPIES AND THEY ARE
TERRIFIC.
AND I SAID TO HIM, IF THERE IS ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE
-- HE IS GOING TO GET ALL THE ONES WHICH WE INTEND TO INTRODUCE,
WHICH I SUBMIT IS OUR ONLY LEGAL OBLIGATION HERE -- IF YOU WANT
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE AND YOU NEED TO SEE IT, I WILL GIVE YOU THAT
PRINT, SO --
THE COURT: SEEMS LIKE A NON-DISPUTE THEN.
ALL RIGHT.
SETTLE IT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, GIVE HIM WHATEVER
PHOTOGRAPHS HE WANTS THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I WOULD LIKE ALL OF THE ONES -- I
WOULD LIKE ALL OF THEM.
THE COURT: YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLE. THEY HAVE GIVEN
YOU COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY CAN EXHIBIT TO YOU THE ORIGINAL. HE
HAS INDICATED HE WILL GIVE YOU ANY ONE THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
USE.
SETTLE IT BETWEEN YOURSELVES AT LUNCH.
YOU GUYS ARE WASTING MY TIME HERE.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY.
ARE THEY UPSTAIRS?
THE BAILIFF: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BRING THEM DOWN.
(RECESS.)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT
PRESENT.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED
BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE LATE START THIS
MORNING. I HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE NEEDED TO DETERMINE
OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE.
I ALSO WANTED TO GIVE YOU FAIR WARNING, THERE IS ONE
MAJOR ISSUE THAT I NEED TO RESOLVE WITH THE LAWYERS THAT IS
COMING UP.
MY GUESS IS THAT IT WILL TAKE ME ABOUT TWENTY HOURS
TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES AND THE EVIDENCE THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO
ME, AND I ANTICIPATE USING MY EVENING HOURS TO TRY TO DO MOST OF
THAT, BUT IT MAY ALSO INCLUDE SOME COURT TIME.
AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A WARNING THAT THERE
MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL DARK TIME COMING UP THIS WEEK, JUST SO YOU
KNOW.
ALL RIGHT.
THE DEFENSE MAY CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE CALLS LARRY RAGLE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. RAGLE.
JOHN LARRY RAGLE,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE
IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH,
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND
STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS JOHN LARRY RAGLE. IT IS J-O-H-N,
LARRY, L-A-R-R-Y, RAGLE, R-A-G-L-E.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q MR. RAGLE, YOU ARE HERE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT IN
CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES, ARE YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, COULD YOU GIVE US A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR
UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.
A I ATTENDED THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
AND I RECEIVED A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CRIMINALISTICS,
WHICH IS NOW CALLED FORENSIC SCIENCE, AT BERKELEY, IN 1959.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC TRAINING AS A POLICE
OFFICER?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DOES THAT TRAINING CONSIST OF?
A I'M A GRADUATE OF THE CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICER'S
ASSOCIATION ACADEMY.
Q AND WHAT YEAR DID YOU GRADUATE FROM THE ACADEMY?
A 1957.
Q NOW, COULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN 1956
AND 1960.
A IN 1956 I BECAME A MEMBER OF THE BERKELEY POLICE
DEPARTMENT. I WAS A PATROL -- PATROLMAN AND AN INVESTIGATOR
UNTIL 1960.
Q AND IN 1960 WHERE DID YOU GO?
A IN 1960 I BECAME AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
Q AND IN YOUR CAPACITY WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT FROM -- NOW, THAT WAS FROM 1960 TO WHAT YEAR?
A 1989.
Q AND FROM 1960 TO 1976 DID YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR AREA
THAT YOU WORKED IN?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THAT?
A MY ASSIGNMENT WAS AS A GENERAL CRIMINALIST.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A
GENERAL CRIMINALIST?
A AS A GENERALIST I INVESTIGATED ALL TYPES OF CRIMES,
EITHER AT THE CRIME SCENE OR ANALYZING EVIDENCE IN COURT AND
TESTIFYING TO MY FINDINGS IN COURT.
Q DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU CONDUCT ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO HOMICIDES?
A YES.
Q ANY INVESTIGATIONS INTO DOUBLE HOMICIDES?
A YES.
Q DID YOU -- WAS YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
INVESTIGATING CRIME SCENES THEMSELVES?
A NO.
Q WHAT WAS YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY?
A MY PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY WAS ANALYZING EVIDENCE.
Q THAT WOULD BE AFTER EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED AT A CRIME
SCENE IT WOULD BE YOUR JOB TO ANALYZE IT?
A YES.
Q NOW FROM 1976 TO 1989 WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION?
A IN 1976 I WAS PROMOTED TO AT THAT TIME WHAT WAS
CALLED A CHIEF CRIMINALIST AND THAT WAS THE MANAGER OF THE CRIME
LABORATORY, THE TOX -- AND THE TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY.
Q THAT IS BASICALLY THE PERSON THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THE
WHOLE CRIME LAB?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HELD THAT POSITION UNTIL WHAT DATE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHAT YEAR?
A TECHNICALLY IN 1977 THAT POSITION WAS CHANGED AND IT
BECAME -- THE TITLE BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, SO
ACTUALLY I HELD THE POSITION OF CHIEF CRIMINALIST FOR ONE YEAR.
IN 1977 THE CRIME LABORATORY AND THE TOXICOLOGY
LABORATORY WAS COMBINED WITH THE IDENTIFICATION BUREAU, WHICH IS
THE -- ALL THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS, AND THE CORONER'S
OFFICE.
Q WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOUR JOB WAS SIMILAR TO
MICHELE KESTLER'S JOB IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, YOUR JOB IN ORANGE
COUNTY WAS SIMILAR?
A YOU COULD SAY THAT. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Q ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT YOU HAD?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID THOSE CONSIST OF?
A THE CORONER'S OFFICE, FOR ONE, WAS AN ORGANIZATION
INVESTIGATES ALL TYPES OF DEATHS, NOT JUST DEATHS THAT ARE
SUSPECTED CRIMES, THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION BUREAU AND THE
CAL I.D. BUREAU, WHICH IS THE AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT SYSTEM, AND
THEN THE CORONER'S TOXICOLOGY SECTION, AND THOSE ARE NOT PART OF
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT SID.
Q NOW, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY CRIME LAB, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PEOPLE DID YOU
SUPERVISE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q AT ANY GIVEN TIME?
A WELL, THE LAB GREW DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND BY
THE TIME I RETIRED THERE WERE BETWEEN 100 AND 110 EMPLOYEES.
Q AND HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE CRIMINALISTS OR
TOXICOLOGISTS?
A APPROXIMATELY SIXTY.
Q WHAT TYPES OF CASES WOULD YOU RESPOND TO OR YOUR
PEOPLE WOULD RESPOND TO FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB?
A IN THE CRIMINALISTICS SECTION, WHICH WOULD BE THE --
SIMILAR TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT'S SID, THE TYPES OF
CRIME SCENES THAT WE RESPONDED TO WOULD BE QUESTIONED DEATHS,
DRUG LABORATORIES, POST BOMB DETONATION SCENES, ARSONS.
Q NOW, DID YOU GO TO CRIME SCENES THAT WERE BEING
PROCESSED JUST BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR OTHER
POLICE AGENCIES IN ORANGE COUNTY?
A BOTH.
Q NOW, THE -- I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT THE CORONER'S
OFFICE WAS ALSO UNDER YOUR DIRECTION AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WAS THAT?
A FROM 1977 UNTIL 1986 OR '85, RIGHT IN THAT TIME
RANGE, NINE YEARS.
Q NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU RETIRED FROM THE ORANGE
COUNTY CRIME LAB, IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THAT WAS CONSIDERED
TO BE ONE OF THE BEST CRIME LABS IN THE COUNTRY?
A IT -- IT WAS AND I BELIEVE IT STILL IS.
Q CAN YOU GIVE ME A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF CRIME SCENES THAT -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS ABOUT
HOMICIDES:
HOW MANY HOMICIDES PER YEAR ARE THERE IN ORANGE
COUNTY?
A THE AVERAGE WOULD BE AROUND 150. IT
CAN -- IT HAS BEEN -- STARTING WHEN I FIRST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF
THE DEPARTMENT, SOMEWHERE AROUND FIFTY TO SIXTY, AND BY THE END
OF MY CAREER THERE WERE -- HOMICIDES WERE SOMEWHERE IN THE NUMBER
OF 200.
Q AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY OF THOSE HOMICIDES WOULD
YOUR OFFICE BE INVOLVED IN PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE?
A APPROXIMATELY HALF.
Q NOW, THE OTHER HALF WOULD BE PROCESSED BY WHO?
A BY SOME OF THE CITIES WHO HAD -- TWO CITIES HAD CRIME
LABORATORIES, SMALL CRIME LABORATORIES, OR BY THEIR FIELD
EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS.
Q FOR ALL OF THE HOMICIDES HANDLED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WOULD IT BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, OR THE
PEOPLE WORKING FOR YOU, TO PROCESS THOSE SCENES?
A YES.
Q SINCE YOUR RETIREMENT IN 1989 WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN
DOING?
A PRIMARILY I'VE BEEN ACTING AS A CONSULTANT IN THE
MANAGEMENT AREAS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE A COMPANY THAT HAS A NAME?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS THAT?
A THE CENTER OF FORENSIC SCIENCE.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAY "CONSULTING," WHAT SORTS OF
CONSULTING DO YOU DO?
A THE -- REALLY FALLS INTO A COUPLE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES.
ONE WOULD BE THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT, THAT IS, WHAT TYPE
OF RESPONSE SHOULD A CRIME LABORATORY BE ABLE TO OFFER TO THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, TO ALL LEVELS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM, AND THEN ALSO IN THE AREA OF LABORATORY DESIGN, SPACE
ALLOCATIONS, RELATIVE TO STAFFING AND CASE LOAD.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED OVER YOUR CAREER WITH
DESIGNING CRIME LABS OR REDESIGNING CRIME LABS?
A BOTH.
Q CAN YOU GIVE US JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES?
A WELL, THE LABORATORY IN ORANGE COUNTY IS THE ONE I'M
MOST FAMILIAR WITH BECAUSE THAT LABORATORY WAS REDESIGNED ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS UNSUCCESSFULLY. THAT IS, WE MADE A DESIGN BUT
NOTHING EVER HAPPENED WITH THAT DESIGN.
BUT ULTIMATELY, AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY EMPLOYMENT,
THE COUNTY AGREED TO BUILD A NEW FORENSIC SCIENCE FACILITY.
Q AND HAVE YOU WORKED FOR OTHER COUNTIES AS A
CONSULTANT --
A I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT I WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE
DESIGN OF WHAT IS CALLED THE FORENSIC CENTER IN ORANGE COUNTY,
WHICH IS THE MORGUE, AND THEN I HAVE WORKED FOR OTHER COUNTIES.
Q WHAT OTHER COUNTIES HAVE YOU WORKED FOR?
A AS A CONSULTANT, AFTER I RETIRED, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. BEFORE I RETIRED, VENTURA COUNTY, SANTA
CLARA COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
Q AND DOES THAT INVOLVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FROM
THOSE COUNTIES CONTACTING YOU AND RETAINING YOU TO HELP THEM WITH
THEIR CRIME LABS?
A YES.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY TEACHING EXPERIENCE?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU CURRENTLY TEACHING CLASSES?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CLASSES THAT
YOU TEACH NOW?
A THE CLASS THAT I AM TEACHING FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES IS A CLASS CALLED CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION OR FIELD EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN CLASS.
Q AND JUST GENERALLY WHAT DOES THAT ENCOMPASS?
A IT ENCOMPASSES THE PROCESS OF PROCESSING A CRIME
SCENE, THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF PROCESSING A CRIME SCENE.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN TEACHING EITHER THAT
COURSE OR OTHER COURSES THAT HAVE THE SAME TOPIC?
A THAT COURSE STARTED IN 1968 AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY
UNCHANGED IN ITS NATURE, ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN TECHNICAL
IMPROVEMENTS IN CRIME SCENE PROCESS.
Q NOW, HOW LONG DOES THAT CLASS TAKE, THE WAY IT IS
NOW?
A THE CLASS IS A TWO-WEEK CLASS, A TWO-WEEK CLASS
INVOLVING THE STUDENTS BEING AT THE CLASSROOM EIGHT HOURS A DAY.
Q AND WHAT IS THE -- THE STUDENTS THAT TAKE YOUR CLASS,
WHO ARE THEY PRIMARILY MADE UP OF?
A THE -- RIGHT NOW IT IS ABOUT A 50-50 SPLIT. THAT IS,
ABOUT HALF OF THE STUDENTS ARE POLICE OFFICERS, SWORN POLICE
OFFICERS, AND THE OTHER HALF ARE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
OCCASIONALLY THERE IS A STUDENT WHO
WOULD -- IS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN SOME SORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY THAT TAKES A CLASS.
Q NOW, DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ABOUT THE LENGTH
OF TIME THAT YOUR CLASSES TAKE?
A WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO IMPLY THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN
THE CLASS FOR THE ENTIRE TWO WEEKS. MY PART OF THE CLASS IS TWO
DAYS OF EACH SESSION.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY FBI AGENTS IN YOUR CLASS?
A THERE HAVE BEEN, YES.
Q DID YOU -- DID ANY -- HAS THE FBI BEEN SENDING PEOPLE
TO YOUR CLASS PARTLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS
CASE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, DURING YOUR WORK ON THIS CASE
FOR THE DEFENSE, HAVE YOU HAD CONTACT WITH FBI AGENTS?
A YES.
Q AND SINCE THAT --
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE
ATTENDED YOUR CLASS SINCE IT STARTED IN 1968?
A IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 4000.
Q HAVE ANY PEOPLE FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT ATTENDED YOUR CLASSES?
A YES.
Q DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY?
A I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY. IT WOULD BE THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF THE PEOPLE ASSIGNED TO THEIR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION BUREAU.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS ANYONE FROM THE L.A. POLICE
DEPARTMENT SID EVER COME TO ANY OF YOUR CLASSES?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN AN LECTURER AT ANY LAW SCHOOL?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE IS THAT?
A IN ORANGE COUNTY.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN COURT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES?
A IF YOU INCLUDE EVERY TYPE OF CASE, CLOSE TO A
THOUSAND TIMES.
Q AND IS THAT PRIMARILY WHEN YOU WERE WORKING WITH THE
ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB?
A EXCLUSIVELY.
Q DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WERE YOU
EVER --
A I WAS GOING TO SAY I HAVE TESTIFIED A FEW TIMES IN
BERKELEY, BUT ON RARE OCCASION.
Q BUT MOST OF YOUR EXPERIENCE TESTIFYING HAS BEEN IN
YOUR CAPACITY WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE
DEFENSE?
A YES.
Q APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q LET ME LIMIT THAT TO WHEN YOU WERE WITH THE ORANGE
COUNTY CRIME LAB.
A FIVE OR SIX TIMES.
Q AND WAS THAT RESULT OF THE DEFENSE RETAINING YOU OR
FOR SOME OTHER REASON?
A THAT WAS -- SOME OTHER REASON.
Q AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
A THE RESULTS OF MY EXAMINATION IN THE LABORATORY
FAVORED THEIR CLIENT.
Q COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
THAT YOU BELONG TO?
A I'M A MEMBER AND THE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS, CAC. I'M A MEMBER EMERITUS OF THE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS. I'M A FELLOW
OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCE. AND I'M A MEMBER
EMERITUS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS.
Q AND HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY APPOINTMENTS DURING YOUR
CAREER IN YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE?
A YES.
Q WHAT SORTS OF APPOINTMENTS?
A I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THIS WAS PART OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL STUDY ON DNA.
I WAS A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, WHAT THEY CALL CCI, WHICH IS THE CRIMINALIST --
CALIFORNIA CRIMINALISTICS INSTITUTE, WHICH IS A TRAINING
ORGANIZATION, AND THAT ROLE INCLUDED RECOMMENDING TYPES OF
CLASSES AND TRAINING THAT WOULD BENEFIT CRIME LABORATORY
EMPLOYEES.
I WAS A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE'S CAL I.D. USER COMMITTEE. THE USER COMMITTEE WAS A
GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WHO WERE MANAGERS OF LABORATORIES
THAT WERE IN THE PROCESS OF INSTALLING THE CALIFORNIA
COMPUTERIZED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM CALLED CAL I.D.
AND I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY GROUP AND I WAS A MEMBER AND THE CHAIRPERSON
OF THE FBI COMMITTEE ON WHAT WAS CALLED FORENSIC SCIENCE
OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS A COMMITTEE THAT
RECOMMENDED TO THE FBI TRAINING SECTION THE TYPES OF RESEARCH AND
THE TYPES OF CLASSES THAT WOULD BE MOST BENEFICIAL TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
Q WHO APPOINTED YOU TO THAT FBI COMMITTEE?
A THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME
LABORATORY DIRECTORS, OR THE BOARD, I'M NOT SURE WHICH. I THINK
AS A GROUP THEY MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
Q DO YOU HOLD ANY LICENSES OR CERTIFICATES IN YOUR AREA
OF EXPERTISE?
A TECHNICALLY NO LONGER.
Q HAVE YOU HELD LICENSES?
A YES.
Q AND WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE ARE.
A AT ONE TIME I WAS LICENSED AS A SUPERVISOR OF THE
FORENSIC ALCOHOL ANALYSIS, A STATE LICENSE. I ALSO WAS CERTIFIED
AS A GENERALIST IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINALISTICS BY THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS, AND THAT PARTICULAR CERTIFICATION IS
NOW DEFUNCT, IT EXPIRED AFTER FIVE YEARS -- ACTUALLY, IT DIDN'T
REALLY EXPIRE AFTER FIVE YEARS; IT WAS CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT
ORGANIZATION AND I HAVE TO TAKE A NEW EXAMINATION THIS YEAR IF
I'M GOING TO BE CERTIFIED AGAIN.
Q IS THAT THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROVIDES ACCREDITATION
TO CRIME LABS AS WELL OR IS THAT THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION?
A IT IS NOT THE SAME, NO; IT IS A
DIFFERENT -- A DIFFERENT BOARD.
Q DOES -- DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS STILL CERTIFIES CRIMINALISTS?
A NO, THEY DON'T.
Q WHO DOES THAT NOW?
A THE AMERICAN BOARD OF CRIMINALISTICS.
Q HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY ARTICLES OR MADE ANY
PRESENTATIONS CONCERNING YOUR FIELD OF EXPERTISE?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU DESCRIBE BRIEFLY WHAT SOME OF THOSE
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ARE?
A EARLY ON I DID SOME PRESENTATIONS ON TOXICOLOGY TESTS
THAT I HAD DEVELOPED IN THE LABORATORY ON DETERMINING
AMPHETAMINES AND AMPHETAMINE TYPE COMPOUNDS IN BODY FLUIDS.
I PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE -- NOT AN ARTICLE, BUT A
CHAPTER ON FORENSIC SCIENCE IN A TEXTBOOK THAT WAS GENERALLY
CALLED "PRINCIPLES OF INVESTIGATION," SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I
DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TITLE.
I MADE PRESENTATIONS AT THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
FORENSIC SCIENCES ON TWO PARTICULAR CASES THAT I FELT WERE
SOMETHING THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AWARE OF.
Q ONE OF THOSE INVOLVED THE FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, IT DID.
Q TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A BOOK THAT IS
IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PUBLISHED?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT BOOK?
A "CRIME SCENES."
Q IS THAT A TEXTBOOK OR IS THAT A GENERAL INTEREST
BOOK?
A IT IS A GENERAL INTEREST BOOK.
Q WAS THAT BOOK COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU
WERE HIRED TO WORK ON THIS CASE?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q BUT IT HASN'T YET BEEN PUBLISHED?
A IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. IT WILL BE RELEASED THIS YEAR
SOME TIME.
Q NOW, DURING YOUR TENURE WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY CRIME
LAB DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY EXPERIENCES WITH OUTBREAKS OF
CONTAMINATION?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT -- WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO THE OUTBREAK OF
CONTAMINATION THAT YOU HAD EXPERIENCE WITH?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR
QUALIFICATIONS ON PCR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ALSO VAGUE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: PRIOR TO BEING RETAINED BY THE
DEFENSE IN THE SIMPSON CASE, HAD YOU BEEN HIRED BY THE DEFENSE IN
ANY OTHER CRIMINAL CASES?
A YES.
Q AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY?
A TWO.
Q WERE THOSE LARGE CASES LIKE THIS ONE OR WERE THEY
RELATIVELY MINOR CASES?
A WELL, THEY WERE -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD CALL
THEM RELATIVELY MINOR. MY ASPECT IN THE CASE WAS RELATIVELY
MINOR.
Q HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN
ASKED TO WORK ON THE DEFENSE SIDE OF CRIMINAL CASES WHERE YOU
HAVE REFUSED?
A YES.
Q DOES THAT HAPPEN FAIRLY FREQUENTLY?
A NO.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR YOUR SERVICES
DURING THIS CASE, HAVE YOU NOT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME INVOLVED WITH THE SIMPSON
CASE?
A IN THE LATTER PART OF JUNE OF 1994.
Q AND THAT WAS AT WHOSE BEHEST?
A DR. HENRY LEE ASKED IF I COULD BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE.
Q AND HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WORKING WITH THE DEFENSE
ON A SOMEWHAT CONTINUOUS BASIS SINCE THIS TIME?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ON A MATTER?
THE COURT: WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE.
MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: I WANTED TO MAKE AN OFFER ON THE
FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE PRESENTATION.
I THINK IT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE.
IT IS A SITUATION WHERE HE WAS ASKED TO INVESTIGATE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT FINGERPRINTS WERE FALSIFIED, SO I WOULD LIKE TO
GO INTO THEM VERY BRIEFLY.
THE COURT: HAVE WE GOT ANY FALSIFIED FINGERPRINTS IN THIS
CASE?
MR. BLASIER: NOT FINGERPRINTS, NO, BUT OTHER ISSUES OF
FALSIFICATION CERTAINLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BASED UPON THAT OFFER, THE RULING STANDS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU
FIRST BECAME INVOLVED APPROXIMATELY JUNE 26TH OF LAST YEAR?
A YES.
Q AND HAVE YOU BEEN REGULARLY INVOLVED IN THE CASE ON A
SEMI-CONTINUOUS BASIS SINCE THAT TIME?
A YES.
Q HAS THAT INVOLVED NUMEROUS MEETINGS AND SESSIONS
WHERE WE HAVE DISCUSSED CRIME SCENE PROCESSING ISSUES?
A YES, IT HAS.
Q AND HAVE YOU WATCHED MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY IN THIS
CASE ON TELEVISION ABOUT CRIME SCENE PROCESSING FROM THE
DETECTIVES, AS WELL AS THE FORENSIC PEOPLE AS WELL AS THE
CORONER?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH YOU HAVE BEEN
PAID SO FAR IN THIS CASE?
A TO DATE APPROXIMATELY $35,000.
Q AND WHAT IS YOUR REGULAR BILLING RATE?
A MY REGULAR BILLING RATE WOULD BE $200.00. THAT IS
NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN CHARGING IN THIS CASE.
Q AND WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN CHARGING IN THIS CASE?
A FOR ATTENDING THE MEETINGS, HALF OF THAT, A HUNDRED
DOLLARS AN HOUR. FOR MONITORING TESTIMONY ON T.V., $50.00 AN
HOUR.
Q AND IS THE AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID SO FAR,
DOES THAT COVER EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE OR DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN
AMOUNT THAT YOU WILL BE BILLING AFTER THIS?
A LAST BILLING SUBMITTED INCLUDED JUNE AND I HAVEN'T
BEEN PAID FOR THAT, OR POSSIBLY -- JUNE.
I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING IN JULY, AND NOW THIS MONTH.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. RAGLE, GIVEN YOUR TRAINING
AND EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING, DO YOU HAVE
AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF PRACTICE WHICH SHOULD
BE USED TO PROCESS CRIME SCENES?
A YES, I DO.
Q NOW, DID I ASK YOU TO TRY AND BREAK DOWN THE
PROCESSING OF A CRIME SCENE INTO SOME CATEGORIES FOR ME?
A YES, YOU DID.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE TWO SLIDES MARKED
NEXT IN ORDER?
THE CLERK: 1326.
MR. BLASIER: 1326-A AND B.
THE COURT: FINE, A AND B.
(DEFT'S 1326-A & 1326-B FOR ID = SLIDES)
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE YOU NEED TO SHOW, MR.
BLASIER?
MR. BLASIER: I SHOWED THESE TO HIM BEFORE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ON THIS?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR AND I HAVE BEEN SHOWN TWO
BOARDS, ONE OF WHICH IS ENTITLED "CRIME SCENE PROCESSING" AND THE
OTHER WHICH IS "CHRONOLOGY."
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION
NECESSARILY TO THE TOP ONE.
I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD A THREE-DAY RULE ON SHOWING
CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS AND I DIDN'T RECEIVE THIS UNTIL THIS MORNING,
SO IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ON THAT BASIS.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE CHRONOLOGY IS -- AND I HAVEN'T
CHECKED OUT EVERY SINGLE TIME BECAUSE I JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME
BECAUSE I ONLY SAW IT THIS MORNING -- SOME OF THEM ARE OFF.
FOR EXAMPLE, DENNIS FUNG AND MAZZOLA RECEIVED A CALL
AT 5:26, SO THAT IS ONLY -- THAT IS FOUR MINUTES OFF, BUT IT IS
OFF.
THEY ARRIVED AT BUNDY -- EXCUSE ME -- AT ROCKINGHAM
AT 7:10. THEY LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT TEN O'CLOCK, SO THEY PROBABLY
ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT ABOUT 10:10 OR 10:15 AND I JUST HAVEN'T
CHECKED THE REST OF THE -- THE TIMES, BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT
SOME OF THEM ARE INCORRECT AND SHOULDN'T BE USED.
MR. BLASIER: THEY ARE ALL INTENDED TO BE APPROXIMATE
TIMES, JUDGE. WHETHER IT IS A MINUTE OR TWO OFF IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHART IS JUST TO SHOW WHEN
CRIMINALISTS WERE CALLED, WHEN THE BODIES WERE FOUND, JUST THE
GENERAL DELAY THAT OCCURRED. I MEAN, I WILL STATE THAT THEY ARE
APPROXIMATE TIMES.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO USE
THIS UNTIL MR. GOLDBERG HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK THE
TIMES. I TAKE IT THIS IS IN YOUR COMPUTER, THOUGH?
MR. BLASIER: YEAH.
THE COURT: IT IS ON THE HARD DRIVE?
MR. BLASIER: YEAH.
THE COURT: THAT CAN BE CHANGED?
MR. BLASIER: I AM GETTING TO THIS RIGHT AFTER THIS ONE.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
MR. GOLDBERG: WE CAN ALWAYS DO IT ORALLY.
THE COURT: YEAH. ALL RIGHT.
THAT IS THE ORDER.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. BLASIER: COULD WE HAVE 1326-A, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, CAN YOU SEE THE MONITOR
THERE TO YOUR RIGHT?
A YES, I CAN.
Q AND THE CATEGORIES ON THE CHART, "RECOGNITION OF
EVIDENCE," "PROTECTION OF EVIDENCE," "DOCUMENTATION,"
"COLLECTION" AND "PRESERVATION," THOSE ARE THE CATEGORIES THAT
YOU BROKE DOWN THE VARIOUS STEPS OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING INTO?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT -- WE WANT TO GO
THROUGH EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES -- WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE TERM
"RECOGNITION OF EVIDENCE"?
A THE RECOGNITION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MEANS
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, EITHER THE POLICE OFFICER OR THE FIELD
EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN OR THE CRIMINALIST, HAS EITHER AN INNATE
ABILITY, AN INTUITION OR SPECIAL TRAINING IN WHAT TYPES OF
EVIDENCE WOULD BE IMPORTANT AT A PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE.
SINCE EVERY CRIME SCENE THE EVIDENCE VARIES. THEY
HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
PARTICULAR TYPES OF EVIDENCE AND THEN SET FORTH SOME METHOD OF
CAPTURING THAT.
Q AND THE TERM "PROTECTION OF EVIDENCE," WHAT DO YOU
MEAN BY THAT?
A THE PROTECTION OF EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE FIRST
CATEGORY, THE RECOGNITION, BOTH OF THOSE ARE SORT OF ONGOING
PROCESSES THROUGHOUT ANY CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION.
THE PROTECTION SPECIFICALLY IS TAKING SOME MEASURE
THAT WILL ASSURE THAT THAT EVIDENCE ISN'T CHANGED, ONCE THE
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM ARRIVES -- ARRIVES AT THE SCENE, SO THAT THE
CONCEPT HERE IS THAT IF THEY COULD, THEY WOULD FREEZE THE ENTIRE
EVIDENCE AND THEY WOULD PICK IT UP AND TAKE IT TO SOME SAFE
HAVEN, SO THEY SET UP BARRIERS, THEY MAINTAIN A LOG OF THE PEOPLE
WHO COME IN AND OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THEY MINIMIZE THE TYPE AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND
OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE.
Q NOW, THE TERM "DOCUMENTATION," HOW ARE YOU USING THAT
TERM?
A THAT IS AN ALL -- SORT OF AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING TERM
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE SPECIFICS OF THE LOCATION OF EACH ITEM
THAT IS BELIEVED TO BE EVIDENCE AT THE TIME, WHICH APPEARS
TO BE RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION AT THE TIME.
AND IT INCLUDES PHOTOGRAPHY, AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF PHOTOGRAPHS, GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SCENE WHERE
THIS OBJECT MIGHT BE SEEN OFF IN THE DISTANCE, A CLOSE-UP
PHOTOGRAPH OF IT, WHAT I WOULD CALL AN ORIENTATION PHOTOGRAPH,
AND THEN A VERY CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THERE IS SOME
DOCUMENTATION AS TO THE SIZE AND THE NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR
ITEM, WHAT IT MIGHT BE.
THEN THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED RELEVANT ARE
MEASURED VERY PRECISELY RELATIVE TO SOME FIXED OBJECTS AT THE
CRIME SCENE, SO THAT IF IT IS NECESSARY THAT WHOLE CRIME SCENE
COULD BE RECONSTRUCTED AND PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T AT THE CRIME SCENE
TO BEGIN WITH COULD -- COULD RECOGNIZE AND UNDERSTAND WHERE EACH
ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS.
AND THEN FINALLY THE EVIDENCE IS DOCUMENTED, CARRIES
ON INTO SOME OF THESE OTHER -- OTHER PHASES, WHICH IS THE
COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
"COLLECTION," HOW ARE YOU USING THAT TERM?
A THE COLLECTION -- THE PHYSICAL -- PHYSICAL PICKING UP
OF THE OBJECT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ITS VALUE AS EVIDENCE IS
MAINTAINED.
AND IT MAY BE PACKAGED, IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT HAS
TO BE CARRIED IN -- TO MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY, ITS ORIGINALITY.
IT MIGHT HAVE TO BE PACKAGED AND SOMETHING JUST CARRIED IN YOUR
HAND LIKE A PIZZA BOX OR SOME TYPE OF OPEN CONTAINER LIKE THAT.
A LOADED WEAPON IS AN EXAMPLE.
Q AND "PRESERVATION OF THE CRIME SCENE," WHAT DOES THAT
REFER TO, OR "PRESERVATION OF THE EVIDENCE"?
A THE PRESERVATION OF THE EVIDENCE AGAIN IS AN ONGOING
SUBJECT. IT PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING THAT EVIDENCE IN AS CLOSE TO
ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS POSSIBLE AND THAT BEGINS OBVIOUSLY WITH
THE PROTECTION OF THE EVIDENCE, SO NOTHING HAPPENS TO IT, AND
THEN ULTIMATELY IN THE WAY IT IS PACKAGED, SO IT IS PACKAGED IN
SOMETHING THAT ACCOMMODATES THE OBJECT, THAT DOESN'T ADD TO ANY
-- ANY DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE
NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE.
AND THEN THE PRESERVATION GOES ON UNTIL THEN, HOW
THAT EVIDENCE IS STORED.
SOME OBJECTS HAVE TO BE STORED FROZEN, SOME
REFRIGERATED, SOME DRY.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROTECTION OF THE EVIDENCE
AND KEEPING IT IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION, DOES THAT INCLUDE ALSO
ANY TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON PIECES OF EVIDENCE IN TERMS
OF MAINTAINING THAT IT IS IN THE SAME PLACE WHEN IT WAS FOUND AS
WHEN IT IS COLLECTED?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THESE STEPS BE DONE
PROPERLY?
A THE MAIN REASON IS THAT IF EVIDENCE IS IN ANY WAY
DEGRADED OR ALTERED, ITS POTENTIAL, WHAT I CALL INDIVIDUALITY,
ITS UNIQUENESS CAN CHANGE, CAN BE LOST.
OBVIOUSLY IF EVIDENCE IS -- IS NOT -- YOU GO BACK TO
STEP 1 IN THIS OUTLINE.
IF EVIDENCE IS NOT RECOGNIZED OR -- OR PROPERLY
DOCUMENTED OR COLLECTED, IT CAN LEAVE A LOT OF UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS.
MANY CRIME SCENES CONTAIN A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT
COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND SO IF THESE THINGS ARE NOT DONE,
EVIDENCE OF A PERSON'S INVOLVEMENT MIGHT BE OVERLOOKED OR
EVIDENCE OF A PERSON'S NON-INVOLVEMENT MIGHT BE OVERLOOKED.
Q YOU USED AN ANALOGY WITH ME WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING
THIS OF A DICTIONARY.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO THE JURORS, PLEASE.
A IN SORT OF A SIMPLISTIC STATEMENT THAT I SAID IS THAT
EVERY CRIME SCENE IS LIKE A BOOK OR A DICTIONARY. I MEAN, IF YOU
KNOW WHERE TO OPEN UP THE PAGES AND LOOK UP THE INFORMATION, YOU
CAN ANSWER MANY QUESTIONS, AND MOST CRIME SCENES, NOT ALL, BUT
MOST CRIME SCENES ARE LOADED WITH INFORMATION, IF THE CRIME SCENE
TEAM IS TRAINED AND INTERESTED IN FINDING THIS INFORMATION.
Q NOW, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN RESULT WHEN
THIS IS NOT DONE PROPERLY?
A WELL, YOU MISS THE INFORMATION. WHAT I MENTIONED A
MOMENT AGO, PARTICULARLY --
MR. GOLDBERG: NO QUESTION PENDING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT EVIDENCE
LOSING ITS INDIVIDUALITY. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE LIKE IF THE
FINGERPRINT WAS DISCOVERED AT A CRIME SCENE THAT HAD ALL THE
DETAIL THAT COULD BE ESTABLISHED TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OF THAT
FINGERPRINT AND IT IS NOT COLLECTED POSSIBLY OR IGNORED UNTIL
SOMETHING -- SOMEBODY SMUDGES IT AND NOW ALL YOU CAN SAY IS IT IS
A FINGERPRINT AND IT MIGHT HAVE FINGERPRINT CHARACTERISTICS, BUT
THE FINE DETAIL IS NOW MISSING, AND THE FINE DETAIL IS WHAT IS
NECESSARY FOR IDENTIFICATION.
Q NOW, GIVEN THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THEIR
PROCESSING OF THE CRIME SCENES IN THIS CASE -- AND BY "CRIME
SCENES" I'M TALKING ABOUT ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY -- FELL ABOVE OR
BELOW MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PRACTICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: FOUNDATION SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CRIME LAB?
A SOMEWHAT.
Q AND HAVE YOU FOLLOWED ALL THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE CRIME SCENES WERE PROCESSED IN THIS CASE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CRIME SCENE TRUCK AND
THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT THEY HAVE
AVAILABLE TO THEM?
A YES.
Q NOW, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION -- WITH THAT
UNDERSTANDING IN MIND, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THEIR
PROCESSING OF THE CRIME SCENES IN THIS CASE FELL ABOVE OR BELOW A
MINIMUM STANDARD OF PRACTICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: STILL NO FOUNDATION, NOT RELEVANT, CALLS FOR
OPINION AND SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU CAN ANSWER.
A YES, I HAVE AN OPINION.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT OPINION?
A THAT IT FELL BELOW A MINIMUM STANDARD.
Q NOW, WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THAT OPINION?
A THE BASIS OF THE OPINION -- MY OPINION THAT IT FELL
BELOW A MINIMUM STANDARD --
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. CALLS FOR A
NARRATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THE OUTCOME OF THE EVIDENCE, THE THINGS THAT
OCCURRED TO THE EVIDENCE THAT CAUSED IT TO LOSE SOME OF ITS
INDIVIDUALITY, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE CONTAMINATED AT THE
EVIDENCE (SIC) IN THE SENSE, FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS SOMETHING
PLACED OVER A BODY AT THAT EVIDENCE -- AT THAT CRIME SCENE, WHICH
WAS A MISTAKE IN THE SENSE OF THE CHOICE OF WHATEVER IT WAS, NOT
A MISTAKE NECESSARILY TO COVER A BODY
IF IT IS IN PUBLIC VIEW, AND THERE IS SOME QUESTION OF -- OF JUST
HUMANISTIC ASPECT OF COVERING UP THE REMAINS OF SOMEBODY.
Q WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY.
YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT A BLANKET
WAS REMOVED FROM INSIDE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM AND
WAS PLACED OVER HER BODY?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND WHEN YOU INDICATE THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE, COULD
YOU TELL US WHICH ASPECT OF THAT IS A MISTAKE?
A WELL, THERE ARE REALLY TWO ASPECTS.
THE FIRST IS THE FACT THAT THEY PICKED SOMETHING FROM
THE CRIME SCENE.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AGAIN THIS IS NOT RELEVANT
PURSUANT TO OUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT THIS MORNING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. NOTED. THANK YOU.
OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THEY SELECTED SOMETHING FROM THE CRIME SCENE
AND USED THAT AND THAT LEAVES A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AS TO
THAT -- THE CONDITION OF WHATEVER IT WAS THEY PICKED, I BELIEVE A
BLANKET.
BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT
THEY THEN DID NOT COLLECT THAT BLANKET AND RETAIN IT FOR WHATEVER
EVIDENTIAL VALUE IT MIGHT HAVE HAD BECAUSE IT WAS IN CONTACT WITH
ONE OF THE BODIES.
THERE ARE -- THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES OF
TRANSFERS FROM -- IF NOT FROM THE BLANKET TO THE BODY, FROM THE
BODY TO THE BLANKET, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL AND IS JUST
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE MAY BE HUMANISTIC
REASONS TO COVER A BODY AT A CRIME SCENE.
ARE THERE ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC
REASONS FOR COVERING A BODY AT A CRIME SCENE?
A ONLY IF WEATHER CONDITIONS WOULD CAUSE THAT NEED.
Q NOW, SUPPOSE HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE BLANKET THAT WAS
USED HAD RECENTLY BEEN LAUNDERED. DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
IN YOUR VIEW?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A WELL, YOU STILL DON'T -- UNLESS YOU HAVE THE BLANKET
TO LOOK AT, YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON IT OR
NOT ON IT, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS
TRANSFERRED TO IT AFTER IT WAS USED.
Q NOW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT THERE
WERE SOME BLOOD DROPLETS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q IN YOUR OPINION IS THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT WAS
HANDLED PROPER?
A NO.
Q WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER.
A WELL, THAT OBVIOUSLY IS VERY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, AND
IT WAS NOT COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND THERE WAS SOME
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT WAS NOT COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE
WHICH I FIND UNACCEPTABLE.
Q WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT EXPLANATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, IS YOUR OPINION BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE REASON WAS THAT THAT WAS NOT
COLLECTED?
A CAN I ANSWER THAT IN A NARRATIVE FORM?
THE COURT: NO.
MR. BLASIER: NO.
THE COURT: WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR TESTIMONY? WAS IT
THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THAT TESTIMONY?
A THAT IT WAS NOT THE JOB OF THE CRIMINALIST, IT WAS
THE JOB OF THE CORONERS TO COLLECT THAT SAMPLE.
Q WHEN YOU SAY THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN
BY THAT?
A WELL, UNTIL THE CORONER'S EXPERTS ARE AT THE SCENE,
BY PUTTING THE BODY IN A BODY BAG, ALL THAT EVIDENCE IS DESTROYED
OR AT LEAST CONTAMINATED.
Q IS IT IMPORTANT IN YOUR VIEW THAT THE CORONER'S
OFFICE, THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION PEOPLE AND THE
DETECTIVES, WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER?
A IS IT MY OBSERVATION THAT THEY WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER?
Q NO. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THEY SHOULD?
A THAT THEY SHOULD, YES.
Q AND FROM WHAT POINT IN THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD THAT
OCCUR?
A FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
Q NOW, LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TIMING OF
WHEN VARIOUS PEOPLE WERE CALLED TO THIS CRIME SCENE OCCURRED.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE
CRIMINALISTS WERE CALLED, THE CORONERS WERE CALLED?
A YES, I AM.
Q NOW, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THE BODIES
WERE FOUND?
A 12:15 A.M.
Q AND WHEN WERE THE -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST CALL TO THE
CRIMINALIST, APPROXIMATELY?
A MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS 5:30.
Q AND WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHEN
CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY SCENE TO BEGIN PROCESSING THAT
SCENE, APPROXIMATELY?
A 7:00 A.M.
Q IS THERE ANY -- IN YOUR OPINION ANY LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC REASON TO BE SERVED BY NOT CALLING
CRIMINALISTS FOR APPROXIMATELY TEN HOURS TO THE PRIMARY CRIME
SCENE?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME BACK UP ONE QUESTION.
DID YOU -- WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THE
CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY SCENE TO BEGIN PROCESSING THAT?
A AT THE BUNDY SCENE?
Q YES.
A I BELIEVE 10:15 OR IN THAT -- IN THAT TIME FRAME.
10:15, I BELIEVE.
Q NOW, IN YOUR OPINION IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC REASON OR PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY NOT
HAVING THE CRIMINALIST AT THE PRIMARY CRIME SCENE FOR TEN HOURS?
A NO.
Q WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHEN THE
CRIMINALISTS BEGAN PROCESSING ROCKINGHAM?
A BEGAN PROCESSING ROCKINGHAM?
Q YES, OR ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM?
A 7:00 A.M.
Q NOW, WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THE DETECTIVES, LANGE,
VANNATTER, PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN, LEFT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AT
APPROXIMATELY FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TO MAKE A DEATH
NOTIFICATION TO MR. SIMPSON.
IN YOUR OPINION IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO
TAKE?
A NO.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION FOR HIS OPINION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN YOUR VIEW IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC PURPOSE FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE
DETECTIVES TO LEAVE THE CRIME SCENE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE
A DEATH NOTIFICATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT GENERALLY
TAKE TO MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM WITH ALL THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, ARE YOU -- DID YOU WATCH THE
TESTIMONY OF THE DETECTIVES IN THIS CASE AS TO WHEN THEY WENT TO
ROCKINGHAM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER IT IS AN
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO USE IN INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE TO
HAVE ALL THE DETECTIVES LEAVE THE PRIMARY CRIME SCENE TO GO TO
WHAT MIGHT BE A SECONDARY SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY
EXPERIENCE ON THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE USED TO MAKE DEATH
NOTIFICATIONS IN HOMICIDE CASES?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT DOES THAT EXPERIENCE CONSIST OF?
A AS THE DIRECTOR AND IN CHARGE OF THE DAY-TO-DAY
OPERATIONS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CORONER'S DIVISION, I AM AWARE OF
HOW NOTIFICATIONS ARE MADE.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF HAVING FOUR DETECTIVES LEAVE THE PRIMARY CRIME SCENE TO GO TO
A SECONDARY SCENE TO MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
LET'S ABANDON THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING ON THE
FOUNDATION.
MR. BLASIER: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: FOUNDATION. IT IS NOT THERE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN YOUR OPINION WHAT IS THE
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING CRIMINALISTS RESPOND TO A CRIME SCENE AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE?
A THE REASON THAT YOU WOULD WANT A CRIMINALIST TO COME
TO A CRIME SCENE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IS THE NATURE OF SOME
EVIDENCE IS IN QUESTION, IS PERISHABLE, AND YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT
THE WEATHER CONDITIONS MAY BE, SO THE SOONER THEY ARRIVE, THE
LESS CHANCE OF ANY DEGRADATION OR LOSS OF EVIDENCE.
Q WHEN YOU SAY SOME EVIDENCE IS PERISHABLE, WHAT DO YOU
MEAN BY THAT?
A BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS, FOR EXAMPLE, BLOOD IN A HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS A CRIME SCENE, THE GROUND IS NOT IN ITS
NORMAL ENVIRONMENT, GO BAD.
Q WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THE CORONER CALLED
TO A CRIME SCENE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?
A MY EXPERIENCE WITH HAVING THE CORONER COME TO THE
CRIME SCENE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IS THAT THEY ARE TRAINED IN
ESTABLISHING OR ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH.
Q IS IT IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF THOSE AGENCIES BEGIN
WORKING TOGETHER AT THE VERY EARLIEST MOMENT?
A IN MY OPINION IT IS, YES.
Q ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR
FORENSIC REASON TO NOT BEGIN PROCESSING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE
UNTIL TEN HOURS AFTER THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED, APPROXIMATELY?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT BASIS.
GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THERE IS NO REASON THAT I KNOW OF.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF ONLY -- WITH THE COMPLICATED CRIME SCENES
PRESENT IN THIS CASE -- OF ONLY HAVING ONE TYPE OF CRIMINALISTS
WORKING ALL CRIME SCENES?
A DO I HAVE AN OPINION?
Q YES.
A I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.
Q WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE?
A THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO -- WOULD
BE TO CALL AT LEAST A SECOND TEAM OF CRIMINALISTS.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE EQUIPMENT THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA AND DENNIS FUNG HAD AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THEIR CRIME
SCENE TRUCK FOR EXAMINING FOR LATENT SHOEPRINTS -- SHOEPRINTS
EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS EVER ANY SEARCH DONE IN THE DIRT AREA OF THE BUNDY
CRIME SCENE FOR LATENT SHOEPRINTS?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION, NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IN THE REPORTS THAT I WAS GIVEN I FOUND NO
EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS DONE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR CRIME SCENE TRUCKS HAS
EQUIPMENT TO CONDUCT SUCH AN ANALYSIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, NO
FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, ACTUALLY THERE ISN'T ANY SPECIAL
EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO LOOK FOR SHOE IMPRESSIONS IN SOIL, OTHER THAN
A FLASHLIGHT AT NIGHT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS THERE -- IN YOUR OPINION IS THERE
ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC REASON NOT TO DO THAT AT
A CRIME SCENE SUCH AS BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IMPROPER.
IT IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION?
A YES.
THE COURT: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO LOOK FOR FOOTPRINTS?
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, WHAT TECHNIQUES ARE
AVAILABLE TO LOOK FOR SHOEPRINTS IN DIRT AT NIGHT?
THE COURT: HE HAS ANSWERED THAT ALREADY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT IS THE ROLE OF OBLIQUE LIGHTING
IN EXAMINING SHOEPRINTS?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: OBLIQUE LIGHTING IS LIGHT AT AN ANGLE AND
LIGHT AT A SHARP ANGLE, SO ANY INDENTATIONS, AND WHATEVER IT IS,
WHETHER IT IS SOIL OR INDENTED WRITING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON A
PIECE OF PAPER, THE SHADOWING ACCENTUATES FINE DETAIL SO IT
ALLOWS A PERSON TO SEE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE VERY SUBTLE OR
SOMETHING QUITE OBVIOUS.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I
THINK ARE ACTUALLY ENTERED IN ONE FORM. THOSE ARE JUST BLOW-UPS
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MARKED.
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, THIS WOULD BE 1326 AND 1327 --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. 1327 AND 1328.
THE CLERK: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE FIRST ONE WILL BE 1327, MR. BLASIER.
(DEFT'S 1327 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
(DEFT'S 1328 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: INCIDENTALLY, MR. RAGLE, ARE THERE
ANY ADVANTAGES TO LOOKING FOR SHOEPRINTS AT NIGHT VERSUS IN THE
DAY?
A YES.
Q WHAT ARE THOSE ADVANTAGES?
A THE OBLIQUE LIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE HOLDING A
FLASHLIGHT AT A VERY SHARP ANGLE IN THE DARK, ALLOWS YOU TO
ACCENTUATE ANY FINE DETAIL MUCH GREATER THAN IF YOU HAD ORDINARY
DAYLIGHT RADIATING DOWN FROM VARIOUS ANGLES AND REFLECTING OFF
OTHER SURFACES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS THAT ALSO TRUE FOR SHOE
IMPRESSIONS OR RESIDUES ON HARD SURFACES AS WELL AS DIRT?
A NOT NECESSARILY WITH OBLIQUE LIGHTING, BUT WITH OTHER
TYPES OF LIGHTING IT MIGHT BE.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENSE 1327
-- MR. HARRIS, I THINK WE CAN DO THIS UP HERE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 165, CAN YOU SEE THAT?
JUROR NO. 165: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. BLASIER: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP 1328 AT THE SAME TIME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, CAN YOU SEE THE TWO
PHOTOGRAPHS WE HAVE PUT UP?
A NOT VERY WELL.
Q OKAY.
YOU CAN STEP DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THEM, IF YOU
LIKE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS
BEFORE, HAVE YOU NOT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND WHAT IS 1327 A PICTURE OF?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. RAGLE, WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE JURY WHEN YOU ARE
GIVING YOUR ANSWERS, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IS 13 --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE ONE ON THE LEFT.
A OKAY.
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE AND PART OF THE
PAVEMENT THAT WAS A SIDEWALK AT BUNDY, AND THIS IS APPARENTLY THE
HAT AND SOMEONE POINTING THEIR FINGER AT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
Q NOW, WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY INDICATING THAT IS DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN POINTING AT A GLOVE.
IS THERE, IN YOUR OPINION, ANY LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATIVE REASON FOR HAVING A PICTURE WITH A DETECTIVE
POINTING AT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
A NO.
Q WHAT IS THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO
PHOTOGRAPHING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO HAVING PEOPLE IN
THE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A IT IS GENERALLY AVOIDED.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A PART TRADITION AND PART IT OBLITERATES PART OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH.
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DOES HAVING A PERSON WALKING AROUND
A CRIME SCENE CAUSE ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AS WELL?
A CERTAINLY UNNECESSARY.
Q NOW, 1328 IS A PICTURE -- A LATER PICTURE OF THE
GLOVE WITH AN EVIDENCE TAG ON IT.
YOU HAVE SEEN THAT ONE BEFORE?
A YES, I HAVE.
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NO TAG ON IT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WITH A NUMBER CARD -- NUMBER CARD
THAT SAYS "102"?
A NEXT TO IT.
Q NEXT TO IT?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPHER'S I.D.
NUMBER, CORRECT?
MR. BLASIER: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, DID I ASK YOU TO COMPARE THOSE
TWO PICTURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY ALTERATION
OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE BETWEEN THE FIRST
PICTURE AND THE SECOND PICTURE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS CUMULATIVE. WE HAVE GONE
INTO THIS AT LENGTH.
THE COURT: WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: I'M NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE
OBJECTION, BUT WE HAVE VISITED THIS ISSUE BEFORE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BLASIER: I'M GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF ON THIS, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, IS IT IMPORTANT, IN THE
PROCESS OF PROTECTING A CRIME SCENE, THAT EVIDENCE NOT BE ALTERED
OR MOVED OR PICKED UP OR REPLACED PRIOR TO THE TIME OF ITS
COLLECTION AND PROCESSING?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?
A FOR THE REASONS I EXPRESSED BEFORE; THE INTEGRITY OF
THE EVIDENCE IS THEN IN QUESTION, THE POTENTIAL OF ADDING OR
SUBTRACTING SOMETHING FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT CAN OCCUR.
Q YOU CAN RESUME YOUR CHAIR, PLEASE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I'M WONDERING IF WE MIGHT DISPLAY
THESE TO THE JURORS? I'M NOT SURE THEY CAN ALL SEE THEM.
THE COURT: 1386, CAN YOU SEE THOSE?
IF YOU WANT, MR. BLASIER, YOU CAN BRING THEM UP AND
DISPLAY THEM IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX; HOWEVER, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS
HAVE BEEN DISPLAYED BEFORE.
THIS IS TO ALLOW THE JURORS TO RECOLLECT AND REFRESH
THEIR RECOLLECTIONS AS TO THESE TWO ITEMS.
(THE EXHIBITS WERE DISPLAYED TO
THE JURY.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I'M WONDERING IF THIS MIGHT BE AN
APPROPRIATE TIME TO BREAK?
THE COURT: ARE YOU ABOUT TO SHIFT?
MR. BLASIER: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK FOR
THE LUNCH HOUR.
MR. RAGLE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO
COME BACK AT ONE O'CLOCK.
WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL ONE O'CLOCK.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE MATTER UNTIL THE MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO
YOU, OR ALLOW ANYONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CASE.
WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL ONE O'CLOCK.
AND MR. GOLDBERG, MR. SCHECK, CONFER WITH EACH OTHER
ON THOSE OTHER TWO ISSUES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(AT 11:59 A.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995
1:10 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE
THE JURORS TO JOIN US?
MR. BLASIER: YES, YOUR HONOR. VERY BRIEFLY.
THE COURT: YOU ALWAYS SCARE ME WHEN YOU SAY VERY BRIEFLY.
MR. BLASIER: NO. THIS WILL BE BRIEF.
I WILL ASK THE COURT FOR A LITTLE BIT OF LATITUDE
WITH MR. RAGLE. I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN
COVERED BEFORE. HOWEVER, IT'S ALL BEEN THROUGH OUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES. MR. RAGLE IS THE
FIRST PERSON WE PUT ON AS OUR WITNESS ON CRIME SCENE PRACTICES.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. BLASIER: THE OTHER POINT IS, I INTEND TO ASK HIM
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MOVEMENT OF EVIDENCE, THE ENVELOPE AND
THE GLOVE PRIOR TO COLLECTION. AND I WASN'T HERE ON THURSDAY OR
FRIDAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A BENCH CONFERENCE WHERE
THE COURT STATED THAT IT WAS THE COURT'S IMPRESSION THAT THERE
HAD BEEN TESTIMONY EXPLAINING HOW THOSE ITEMS GOT MOVED.
WE HAVE -- WE DO NOT RECALL ANY SUCH TESTIMONY. I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT'S IN THE RECORD BEFORE
I PURSUE THAT AVENUE. WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY REFERENCE ANYWHERE
TO ANY WITNESS EXPLAINING HOW THOSE ITEMS GOT MOVED. THAT'S OUR
CURRENT UNDERSTANDING.
THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S NOT MY RECOLLECTION. MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, LANGE AND VANNATTER, THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN ITEMS IN
PLACE, THAT BODIES WERE MOVED AND THEN THEY WERE REPLACED AND
PHOTO CARDS PLACED.
MR. BLASIER: I DON'T -- WE DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: YEP. YEP.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BLASIER: I MEAN, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED OBVIOUSLY FROM THE
PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE ITEMS WERE MOVED IN SOME FASHION, BUT I
DON'T RECALL ANY TESTIMONY WHERE THEY SAID, "YEAH, I DID IT," OR,
"HE DID IT," AND THIS WAS JUST TO PUT THINGS --
THE COURT: NO. I RECOLLECT AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT. BUT
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR EXPERT SAY THAT'S NOT
A GOOD IDEA NO MATTER HOW IT HAPPENED.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
THE COURT: FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. BUT I JUST MIGHT ADD
THAT THE JURY I THINK CAN FIGURE THAT OUT.
YOU DON'T THINK SO, MR. SCHECK?
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: NO. RHETORICAL QUESTION.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS.
MR. SCHECK: WHEN WE CAN TALK, WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHAT THE RECORD STATES AND DOESN'T.
THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE A PRETTY CLEAR RECOLLECTION THAT
THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE SOME LATITUDE ON THIS?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. YOU HAVE TO ASK MR. BLASIER.
HE'S THE ONE MAKING THE ARGUMENT FOR HIMSELF, MR. COCHRAN.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
MR. RAGLE, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
LARRY RAGLE,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED
THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. RAGLE.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT LARRY RAGLE IS ON THE
WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER.
MR. RAGLE, SIR, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER
OATH.
MR. BLASIER, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR DIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q MR. RAGLE, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE MORE
QUESTIONS ABOUT LATENT OR FAINT SHOEPRINT OR OTHER IMPRESSIONS
THAT MIGHT BE LEFT AT A CRIME SCENE.
DID I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE LUNCH TO BE
THAT THE NIGHTTIME IS A MUCH BETTER TIME TO LOCATE SUCH PRINTS IF
THEY EXIST THAN THE DAYTIME?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NIGHTTIME OUTDOOR
LOCATION, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE IF A
LATENT OR FAINT SHOEPRINT WAS VISIBLE OR WAS IDENTIFIED THAT WAY?
ARE THERE PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO MAKE A RECORD OF THAT AND
PRESERVE THOSE PRINTS?
A THERE ARE LIFTING DEVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, STATIC
ELECTRICAL DUST LIFTING DEVICES AND THERE'S ORDINARY RUBBER
LIFTING DEVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
Q AND DO THOSE TECHNIQUES ALLOW YOU TO PRESERVE SUCH
PRINTS SO THAT THEY CAN BE ANALYZED LATER OR EXAMINED BY ANY
PARTIES LATER?
A YES, THEY DO.
Q ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT SID DIVISION HAS SUCH EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO
IT?
A IT'S LISTED IN THEIR PROCEDURALS HANDBOOK, THEIR --
THEY CALL IT THEIR CRIME SCENE POLICIES AND PROCEDURAL HANDBOOK
OR FIELD SCENE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: MOTION TO STRIKE. NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
ANSWER IS STRICKEN. JURORS TO DISREGARD.
THE QUESTION WAS, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE THE
EQUIPMENT, NOT WHAT THEIR MANUAL SAYS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE SUCH
EQUIPMENT?
A NO.
Q IS THAT EQUIPMENT THAT'S READILY AVAILABLE TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES EVERYWHERE?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW MR. RAGLE
DEFENSE 1071.
THE COURT: WHICH PAGE, COUNSEL?
MR. BLASIER: WELL, I'M GOING TO SHOW HIM THE MANUAL
INITIALLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: SHOW YOU 1071. DOES THAT APPEAR TO
BE THE FIELD MANUAL THAT YOU WERE JUST REFERRING TO?
MR. GOLDBERG: THERE'S NO FOUNDATION THAT HE CAN
AUTHENTICATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THIS IS THE DOCUMENT THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS IT IMPORTANT IN YOUR VIEW FOR A
CRIME LAB TO HAVE A MANUAL IN PLACE THAT SETS FORTH PROCEDURES TO
BE USED BY CRIMINALISTS IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES?
A YES.
Q AND THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY THAT THAT MANUAL HAS NEVER
BEEN ACTUALLY ADOPTED, THAT IT EXISTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HAS
NEVER GOTTEN PAST THE FIRST DRAFT STAGE.
IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE WITH
RESPECT TO HAVING YOUR METHODS DOCUMENTED?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: IS IT -- THE QUESTION IS, IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO
NOT HAVE THESE METHODS --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YES.
A -- ADOPTED?
Q NOT HAVE ANY METHODS SET FORTH IN A MANUAL THAT
GUIDES EVERYBODY ON COLLECTING EVIDENCE THE SAME WAY.
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
Q OKAY.
HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT FIELD MANUAL, THE PORTIONS OF
IT THAT RELATE TO EVIDENCE COLLECTION?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I HAVE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON
WHETHER CERTAIN PARTS OF THAT MANUAL STATE PROCEDURES, CORRECT
PROCEDURES THAT SHOULD BE USED IN PROCESSING EVIDENCE?
A YES, THEY DO.
Q LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION ABOUT DEATH NOTIFICATION.
WHAT IS THE STANDARD PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO DEATH
NOTIFICATIONS IN HOMICIDES CASES?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTIONS PREVIOUSLY MADE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO MANY OF THE SUGGESTIONS OR
COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE ABOUT INADEQUACIES WITH THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT RELATE TO THE PREVENTION OR THE DETECTION OF
EVIDENCE TAMPERING?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. HE DIDN'T TALK
ABOUT ANY INADEQUACIES IN THE DEPARTMENT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU RECALL WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT
THE FIVE CATEGORIES OF PROCESSING A CRIME SCENE AND WHAT THE
GENERAL FRAMEWORK IS, WHAT YOUR GOALS ARE IN PROCESSING CRIME
SCENES?
A YES.
Q AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO PREVENTION OR DETECTION
OF EVIDENCE TAMPERING?
A THE STEP THAT I DESCRIBED AS DOCUMENTATION, ALL OF
THAT -- ALL THE EFFORTS WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR STEP ARE INTENDED
TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, THE IDENTITY OF THE
EVIDENCE AND TO ESTABLISH THAT ONLY AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS WHO
EITHER COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE OR IN ANY WAY OPEN THE EVIDENCE OR
WORK WITH THE EVIDENCE OR RECORD IT.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH TAMPER-RESISTANT SEALS FOR
EVIDENCE ITEMS?
A YES.
Q NOW, HAVE YOU FOLLOWED THE TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO
THE DRAWING OF MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE BLOOD AND THE PROCEDURE
THAT WAS USED TO PRESERVE THAT AND TRANSPORT IT?
A YES, I AM.
Q NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 163-H. THAT IS
A SAMPLE ENVELOPE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE ENVELOPE USED TO
CONTAIN MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE.
IS THAT WHAT THAT APPEARS TO BE TO YOU?
A YES.
Q NOW, THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH ON THAT ENVELOPE
INDICATE THAT IT SHOULD BE SEALED ONCE THE EVIDENCE --
MR. GOLDBERG: LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE WITH
RESPECT TO SEALING EVIDENCE AT THE TIME THAT IT'S COLLECTED IN
YOUR VIEW?
A WITH THIS SPECIFIC ITEM OR ANY ITEM?
Q WELL, LET'S TAKE THAT ITEM AS AN EXAMPLE.
A ANY -- ANYTIME THE SAMPLE IS PLACED IN A CONTAINER
LIKE THIS AND THEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE PERSON TO THE OTHER, THE
EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SEALED BY THE PERSON WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF
THE EVIDENCE.
Q AND WHAT'S THE REASON FOR HAVING IT SEALED AT THAT
EARLY STAGE?
A SO THAT ITS IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY IS WITHOUT ANY
QUESTION.
Q IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO PLACE A
REFERENCE BLOOD VIAL IN THAT ENVELOPE AND HAVE IT REMAIN UNSEALED
FOR SEVERAL DAYS?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. NO
FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT A GOOD PRACTICE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO THE
PROPER TECHNIQUE THAT SHOULD BE USED IN TERMS OF MARKING EVIDENCE
AS IT'S COLLECTED?
THE COURT: ISN'T THAT KIND OF VAGUE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH
A WIDE RANGE OF DIFFERENT TYPES, SOME OF WHAT CAN'T ACTUALLY BE
MARKED ITSELF, SO --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET'S TAKE, AS AN EXAMPLE, THE
SWATCHES THAT WERE MADE FROM BLOODSTAINS, AND I'M GOING TO ASK
YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PROCEDURE THAT SHOULD BE USED TO
IDENTIFY THOSE OR MARK THEM.
IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO
USE ONCE THAT ITEM IS COLLECTED?
A SINCE SWATCHES CANNOT BE ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON, THEY
SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED BY COUNTING THEM, BY PLACING -- PLACING THEM
IN SOME SORT OF CONTAINER WHERE THEY WILL BE DRIED IF THEY'RE NOT
ALREADY DRY. IDEALLY, THEY WOULD BE EITHER PHOTOGRAPHED OR
SKETCHED AND THEN THEY WOULD BE PLACED IN A PACKAGE AND SEALED;
AND IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT'S AVAILABLE, SEALED WITH SOME SORT OF
TAPE SUCH AS THIS TAPE.
Q AND, AGAIN, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT?
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS AGAIN.
MR. BLASIER: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: WE DON'T NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS AGAIN.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DOES THE LAPD FIELD MANUAL THAT IS
NOT ACTUALLY IN EFFECT PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR FULLY DOCUMENTING
THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO AUTHENTICATION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT DOES, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO REMOVING DRY
BLOODSTAIN FROM VARIOUS SURFACES, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE
PROPER WAY THAT THAT SHOULD BE DONE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT OPINION? I MEAN, HOW SHOULD THAT BE
DONE PROPERLY?
A WELL, THE BEST WAY TO REMOVE A SAMPLE OF BLOOD FROM
ANY DRY SURFACE THAT'S NOT MOVABLE -- THE BEST WAY, IF IT'S ON A
MOVABLE SURFACE, IS TO MOVE THE SURFACE DIRECTLY TO THE
LABORATORY BY THE PROCESS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, THE
DOCUMENTATION, PACKAGING AND PRESERVATION.
BUT IF IT'S ON SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE MOVED, THE
FIRST ATTEMPT SHOULD BE TO AT LEAST EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT SOME
OF IT CAN BE SCRAPED OFF OF THE SURFACE WITH A PROBE OR WITH A
SCALPEL BLADE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO THAT THE BLOOD IS LEFT IN
AS CLOSE TO THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE.
IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE OR IF ONLY PART OF THE SAMPLE
CAN BE REMOVED THAT WAY, THEN THE NEXT STEP IS TO DAMPEN
SOMETHING, EITHER A SWATCH, THE TECHNIQUE THAT'S USED IN LOS
ANGELES OR AT LEAST BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, OR A
COTTON SWAB SIMILAR TO A Q-TIP, AND TO DAMPEN THAT AND THEN TO
APPLY THAT TO THE REMAINING STAIN OR WHATEVER IS LEFT OF THE
STAIN UNTIL ALL OF THAT IS TRANSFERRED ONTO THE COTTON.
Q NOW, THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE THAT WET
BLOOD SWATCHES WERE STORED IN PLASTIC BAGS. IN YOUR OPINION, IS
THAT AN ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUE TO USE TO PRESERVE BLOOD SWATCHES?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT COMPLETELY MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT A PROPER TECHNIQUE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHY NOT?
A IT'S A VERY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR ANY BIOLOGICAL
MATERIAL TO BE PLACED INTO, FIRST OF ALL, ANY PLASTIC BAG,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S WET.
Q NOW, WHAT IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE IN TERMS OF WHETHER
THAT -- WHETHER BLOOD SWATCHES SHOULD BE DRIED RIGHT AT THE SCENE
OR DRIED LATER?
A IT'S MY OPINION THEY SHOULD BE DRIED AT THE SCENE.
Q NOW, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENTING SUCH THINGS
AS BINDLES OR CONTAINERS WITH BLOOD SWATCHES IN THEM, IS IT
IMPORTANT IN YOUR VIEW THAT THEY BE INITIALED BY THE PERSON WHO
ACTUALLY DOES THE COLLECTION?
A YES.
Q IF MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS INVOLVED WITH HANDLING OR
COLLECTING THAT EVIDENCE, IS IT IMPORTANT THAT BOTH THOSE PEOPLE
BE INDICATED ON THE PACKAGING MATERIAL?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE THAT THE PLASTIC
BAGS THAT CONTAIN THE WET SWATCHES WERE TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEN DISCARDED.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER THAT WAS AN
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW IN THE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING
OF BLOODSTAINS?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I HAVE AN OPINION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
A THAT ANYTHING THAT CONTAINED THE EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE
PLASTIC BAG SHOULD BE RETAINED.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT COMES UP LATER; WAS THERE
ANYTHING IN THE PLASTIC BAG THAT COULD HAVE INTERFERED WITH ANY
SUBSEQUENT TEST, WAS THE BAG ITSELF SOMETHING THAT COULD
INTERFERE WITH ANY SUBSEQUENT TEST, WAS THERE ANY RESIDUE OF THE
SAMPLE, SINCE IT'S PLACED IN THERE WET, THAT COULD BE OF SOME
VALUE FOR FURTHER TESTING.
Q IS PRESERVING PACKAGING MATERIAL IMPORTANT IF THERE'S
SOME QUESTION DOWN THE ROAD ABOUT WHETHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
SWITCHED OR ALTERED IN SOME FASHION?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND IF THERE'S BLOOD RESIDUE LEFT ON
THE INSIDE OF THE PLASTIC BAGS, CAN THAT BE USEFUL IN TESTING
WHETHER OR NOT A LATER SAMPLE ACTUALLY CAME FROM THAT BAG OR NOT?
A YES.
Q YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM A "PHOTO LOG"; ARE YOU
NOT?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A PHOTO LOG?
A A PHOTO LOG IS LIKE A DIARY. IT'S A SEQUENTIAL LIST
OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE TAKEN AT ANY PARTICULAR EVENT INVOLVING
AN INVESTIGATION.
Q AND YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A
COMPLETE PHOTO LOG WAS KEPT BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT
DOCUMENTS THE ORDER IN WHICH PICTURES WERE TAKEN AT THE BUNDY OR
ROCKINGHAM SCENES?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION, NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER
OR NOT A PHOTO LOG WAS MAINTAINED FOR PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN
AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON
WHETHER OR NOT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH RESPECT TO A PHOTO
LOG WAS KEPT OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THE BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM
SCENES?
MR. GOLDBERG: COMPOUND, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: FOUNDATION. SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS DONE
WITH RESPECT TO CREATING A PHOTO LOG, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON
WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS DONE ADEQUATELY BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT?
MR. GOLDBERG: THERE'S NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO LOCATE A PHOTO
LOG FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWING THE ORDER IN
WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY?
A YES.
Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN SUCH A LOG?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS SUCH A LOG IMPORTANT?
A YES.
Q IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT AN ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE TO
PROCESS A CRIME SCENE SUCH AS BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM WITHOUT
KEEPING A PHOTO LOG?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
IS IT AN APPROPRIATE PRACTICE TO KEEP A PHOTO LOG?
THE WITNESS: YES, IT IS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO
EVIDENCE ITEMS SUCH AS THE SOCKS THAT WERE FOUND AT MR. SIMPSON'S
RESIDENCE IN THIS CASE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT A
COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION BE MAINTAINED AS TO WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
TAKEN, IN WHAT SEQUENCE OF EVIDENCE, ITEMS SUCH AS THAT?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE USE OF VIDEOTAPING OR VIDEO
CAMERAS IN THE PROCESSING OF CRIME SCENES?
A YES, I AM.
Q HOW IS A VIDEO CAMERA USEFUL IN PROCESSING A CRIME
SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S SPECULATION UNLESS HE'S USED ONE
HIMSELF.
THE COURT: FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH TECHNIQUES
THAT ARE USED TO DOCUMENT CRIME SCENES THROUGH THE USE OF
VIDEOTAPING?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE, "ARE YOU FAMILIAR."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT ARE THOSE TECHNIQUES?
A THE TECHNIQUE OF WALKING THROUGH A CRIME SCENE AND
VIEWING THE SCENE THROUGH THE CAMCORDER.
Q NOW, DOES THAT SERVE SOME PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO
BRIEFING OTHER OFFICERS ON WHAT IS AT A CRIME SCENE?
A THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I RECOMMEND IN MY TEACHING OF
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS; IS TO USE THIS CAMCORDER, PARTICULARLY
THE KIND THAT HAS A VIEWING SCREEN ON IT FOR A QUICK REVIEW. FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE WHO WANT TO KNOW OR WHO NEED
TO KNOW WHAT THE CRIME SCENE LOOKS AT, RATHER THAN HAVING THEM
WALK THROUGH THE SCENE AGAIN AND IN ADDING ANY OTHER POSSIBLE
CHANGES TO THE SCENE, TO VIEW THE SCENE ON A CAMCORDER.
Q NOW, WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S THE DISADVANTAGE OF HAVING
-- OF NOT HAVING A VIDEOTAPE TO SHOW OTHER OFFICERS?
A WELL, IF THEY GENERALLY HAVE A NEED TO KNOW, THEY
HAVE TO GO INTO THE CRIME SCENE AND WALK THROUGH IT.
Q WHY ISN'T JUST TAKING STILL PHOTOGRAPHS ACCEPTABLE BY
ITSELF?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. ASSUMES FACTS NOT
IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S LEADING.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, CAN THE SAME PURPOSE BE
ACHIEVED BY TAKING STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AT A CRIME SCENE?
A TO SOME EXTENT, POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT A CRIME
SCENE BECAUSE THEY'RE DEVELOPED ALMOST INSTANTLY. BUT REGULAR
PHOTOGRAPHY REQUIRES, EVEN IF THERE'S AN ALL NIGHT ONE-HOUR
SERVICE, AT LEAST AN HOUR.
Q NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS VIDEOTAPING EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO IT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THE ONLY SCENE
VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS TAKEN WAS FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES AT ROCKINGHAM
AFTER A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED.
IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT A PROPER USE OF THE
VIDEOTAPING EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAD AVAILABLE TO THEM?
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT ACCEPTABLE OR
UNACCEPTABLE IF A POLICE AGENCY HAS VIDEOTAPING EQUIPMENT
AVAILABLE TO THEM TO NOT TAKE ANY VIDEOTAPES OF A CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY THAT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN USED THE INTERIOR OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
CONDOMINIUM AS A SORT OF COMMAND POST AFTER HE ARRIVED AT THE
SCENE.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN
APPROPRIATE USE OF THE INSIDE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
CONDOMINIUM?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY THAT THE
INSIDE OF THE CONDOMINIUM WAS USED BY POLICE OFFICERS TO EITHER
SIT DOWN AND MAKE NOTES OR CONDUCT BRIEFINGS OF OTHER POLICE
OFFICERS.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS
APPROPRIATE?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: IT'S COMPOUND.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: IT'S COMPOUND.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE
TO WHICH THE INSIDE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM WAS
USED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME THAT THEY
ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT, NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND THAT WAS AS TO WHAT?
A TO GOING INSIDE THE CONDO.
Q NOW, IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE IN YOUR MIND?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO "ACCEPTABLE." NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU SEE ANY --
THE COURT: COUNSEL -- COUNSEL, JUST FOCUS IN ON THE
PARTICULAR WITNESS THAT SAT ON THE COUCH AND MADE NOTES, FOCUS IN
ON THE PARTICULAR WITNESS WHO USED THE TELEPHONE, FOCUS IN ON THE
PARTICULAR WITNESS WHO USED THE LIGHTS. LET'S NOT -- THESE ARE
VERY VAGUE QUESTIONS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO NARROW IT DOWN TO THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE MARK
FUHRMAN USING THE INSIDE OF THE CONDOMINIUM TO SIT DOWN AND WRITE
HIS NOTES, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS
APPROPRIATE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO THAT UNLESS THAT
AREA HAD BEEN PROCESSED FOR EVIDENCE BEFORE THAT TIME.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE
INSIDE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM BE PROCESSED IN ANY
FASHION?
A BECAUSE IT IS ADJACENT TO AND AT LEAST IN MY OPINION
PART OF THE OVERALL SCENE.
Q NOW, ARE YOU AWARE OF I BELIEVE IT WAS OFFICER
RISKE'S TESTIMONY, THAT HE USED A TELEPHONE INSIDE OF NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM TO I BELIEVE CONTACT OTHER POLICE
OFFICERS?
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS
AN APPROPRIATE ACTION TO TAKE ON HIS PART?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE AN OPINION, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
A THAT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO USE THE PHONE INSIDE
THE VICTIM'S HOUSE AT THAT TIME.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A THE MOST OBVIOUS REASON WOULD BE, IF SOMEBODY ELSE
HAD USED THAT PHONE THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, THERE
COULD HAVE BEEN FINGERPRINTS ON THAT PHONE. THE OTHER REASONS
ARE BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY TODAY AND REDIALING.
AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT ON MY OWN KNOWLEDGE, BUT
TESTIMONY I HEARD, THAT THERE'S OTHER MECHANISMS ON THAT PHONE
THAT WOULD INDICATE THE LAST INCOMING CALL THAT --
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. MOTION TO STRIKE
THE WITNESS' LAST ANSWER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS TO THE TECHNOLOGY REGARDING LAST INCOMING PHONE
NUMBER, THAT WILL BE STRICKEN. NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, IS THERE -- DO YOU HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THAT TELEPHONE WAS ABLE TO STORE THE
LAST NUMBER THAT WAS USED TO CALL OUT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE,
NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. BUT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST NUMBER
REDIAL IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
MR. BLASIER: YES.
THE COURT: AND HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE
TIMING AS TO WHEN THE CORONER'S OFFICE REMOVED THE VICTIMS'
BODIES WITH RESPECT TO THAT CRIME SCENE BEING ACTUALLY PROCESSED?
A THAT THE BODIES WERE REMOVED AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15.
Q AND WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER THAT CRIME SCENE WAS
PROCESSED?
A THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE CRIMINALIST FUNG AND
MAZZOLA DID AT LEAST MOST OF THEIR PROCESSING.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE LANGE
WITH RESPECT TO HIS REASONS WHY THE BODIES WERE REMOVED PRIOR TO
THE TIME THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS PROCESSED?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DO YOU RECALL HIM USING A TERM "CLOSE-IN CRIME
SCENE"?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM PAGE
17638 AND ASK THE WITNESS HIS OPINION OF THIS EXPLANATION IF I
MIGHT.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO GIVE COUNSEL THE CITE?
MR. BLASIER: 17638.
MR. GOLDBERG: I DIDN'T BRING MY FULL SET OF TRANSCRIPTS
>FROM THE WHOLE TRIAL.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU SHOW IT TO HIM, PLEASE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. RAGLE, I WANT TO READ TO
YOU THE TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE LANGE WITH RESPECT TO WHY THE
SCENE WAS PROCESSED IN THAT MANNER AND ASK FOR YOUR OPINION ABOUT
THIS.
"BUNDY WAS A CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE. THE VICTIMS
WERE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER. THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSE TO THE
VICTIMS. A DETERMINATION WAS MADE, AS ONE EXAMPLE, TO REMOVE THE
VICTIMS PRIOR TO THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THIS. IF THE EVIDENCE
HAD BEEN SEVERAL FEET AWAY OR OUT IN THE STREET OR SOMETHING
ELSE, PERHAPS THE VICTIMS WOULD HAVE STAYED AT THAT LOCATION
WHILE THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED. YOU JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH
WHAT YOU HAVE."
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER THAT IS AN
ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE BODIES WERE REMOVED PRIOR TO
THE TIME THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS PROCESSED?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO "ACCEPTABLE." NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION. EXAMINATION OF THE
CRIME SCENE PHOTOS, APPRECIATION FOR THE PROXIMITIES, YOU NEED A
FOUNDATION FOR THAT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN FORMING AN OPINION THAT YOU HAVE,
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU'VE
REVIEWED AS WELL AS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ORDER IN WHICH THINGS
WERE DONE AND THE PROXIMITY OF VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO THE
BODIES?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION BASED ON THAT AS TO
WHETHER DETECTIVE LANGE'S EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT WAS DONE IS
ACCEPTABLE OR NOT?
A I HAVE AN OPINION.
Q AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO "ACCEPTABLE."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT IS MY OPINION THAT THAT IS NOT AN
ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHY NOT?
A IT IS 180 DEGREES IN OPPOSITION OF HOW A CLOSE-IN
CRIME SCENE SHOULD BE PROCESSED. THE EVIDENCE THAT IS NEAREST
THE BODY -- YOU HAVE TO START FROM THE OUTSIDE AND WORK YOUR WAY
IN AND YOU CAN'T MOVE -- YOU COULD MOVE THE VICTIM AND YOU SHOULD
MOVE THE VICTIM OBVIOUSLY IF THE VICTIM -- IF THE VICTIM'S ALIVE.
I MEAN YOU HAVE TO ENDANGER THE EVIDENCE TO SAVE THE PERSON'S
LIFE. THAT HAPPENS A LOT.
IF THERE IS NO CHANCE OF THAT, THEN IT'S A SLOW
METHODICAL APPROACH TO THE VICTIMS AND IT'S THE LAST THING YOU
WOULD DO, WOULD BE TO MOVE THE VICTIMS, AND YOU SHOULD NEVER MOVE
THE VICTIMS OVER THE EVIDENCE OR HAVE TO MOVE THE EVIDENCE IN
ORDER TO MOVE DECEASED INDIVIDUALS.
Q NOW, HAVE YOU EXAMINED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VARIOUS
PIECES OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND DETERMINED THAT SOME ITEMS OF
EVIDENCE WERE MOVED FROM THE TAKING OF ONE PICTURE UNTIL SOME
LATER PICTURE, SPECIFICALLY THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE IN YOUR VIEW OF DETERMINING
HOW THAT KIND OF MOVEMENT OF EVIDENCE TOOK PLACE?
A THE APPROPRIATENESS DID YOU SAY?
Q WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OR IS THERE ANY IMPORTANCE TO
TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW EVIDENCE GOT MOVED PRIOR TO THE TIME IT
WAS COLLECTED?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, THERE IS SOME IMPORTANCE TO THAT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT IS THAT IMPORTANCE?
A THE IMPORTANCE IS -- I'M LOOKING OVER HERE. I
THOUGHT THE PHOTOS WERE STILL THERE -- IS THAT THE --
Q WOULD YOU LIKE TO REFER TO THOSE?
A I DON'T THINK I NEED THEM.
IT'S JUST THAT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS IN THE PATH OF
THE MOVEMENT OF THE DECEASED OR THE PEOPLE -- TO LIFT AN ADULT,
IT REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE. SO THERE HAS TO BE AN INTRUSION
INTO THE VERY HEART OF THE CRIME SCENE HERE, AND OBVIOUSLY
ANYTHING THAT IS IN THE WAY CAN GET MOVED OR IT CAN GET STEPPED
ON OR IT CAN GET ALTERED.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO TRACE EVIDENCE SUCH AS DIRT OR
OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE SUCH
AS THE ENVELOPE, WHAT'S THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO USE TO PRESERVE
THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE?
A YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOOSE MATERIAL OR --
Q ANY TRACE MATERIAL THAT MIGHT BE APPARENT ON AN ITEM
THAT'S ON THE GROUND.
A OKAY.
I BELIEVE THE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL TO REMOVE ANY
EVIDENCE THAT IS FRAGILE IS TO DO IT AT THE CRIME SCENE, TO
INSPECT THE EVIDENCE, TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE LOST IF YOU ATTEMPT TO PICK IT UP AND PUT IT IN A
CONTAINER, AND IF THAT'S THE DECISION OF THE CRIMINALIST, TO
COLLECT IT THERE RATHER THAN TAKE THE CHANCE OF LOSING IT.
Q NOW, YOU TALKED A LITTLE EARLIER ABOUT THE PROPER
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION FOR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. LET'S TALK
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BLOOD DROPS.
HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
AVAILABLE TO YOU OF THE -- WHAT'S BEEN CALLED THE BUNDY BLOOD
DROPS?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IS ADEQUATE?
A IT IS NOT.
Q AND WHY IS IT NOT ADEQUATE?
A EXCUSE ME. YES, I HAVE AN OPINION.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT OPINION?
A THAT IT'S NOT.
Q WHY IS IT NOT ADEQUATE?
A THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS.
EVERY PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT'S CLOSE
UP -- I THINK I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER -- SHOULD HAVE A RULER,
AND IN THE CASE OF SOMETHING LIKE BLOOD DROPS, SHOULD HAVE A
INDICATION OF THE DIRECTION, COMPASS OR NOT THE DIRECTION
NECESSARILY OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE BLOOD, BUT OF NORTH OR SOME --
SOME REFERENCE POINT SO THAT A VIEWER LATER ON CAN SEE THIS, THE
RULER CAN TELL THEM THE SIZE, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS TO BE SOME
OTHER INDICATOR OR MARKER OR NUMBER, AN ITEM NUMBER, SOMETHING
LIKE THAT AND THEN DIRECTION OF NORTH.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH TO MARK NEXT
IN ORDER.
THE COURT: THIS WOULD BE 1329? 1329.
(DEFT'S 1329 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED
AS DEFENSE 1329. THAT'S A PICTURE OF ONE OF THE BUNDY DROPS
THAT'S BEEN REFERRED TO; IS IT NOT?
A YES.
Q AND CAN YOU USE THIS PICTURE AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW
THAT WAS IMPROPERLY DOCUMENTED AT LEAST THROUGH THIS PICTURE?
A ONLY ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I SUGGESTED A MOMENT AGO
SHOWS UP IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, AND THAT IS, THERE IS A TAG
INDICATING A PHOTO NUMBER. THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
WHAT'S INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THAT TAG BY THE WAY IS THE
PLACEMENT OF IT, IT IS TOO CLOSE AND IS OBLITERATING OR AT LEAST
-- I SHOULDN'T SAY OBLITERATING -- IT IS MASKING THE AREA
UNDERNEATH THE PIECE OF PAPER. IT LOOKS LIKE A 3 X 5 CARD OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT'S TOO CLOSE.
THERE SHOULD BE -- IT COULD BE THIS CLOSE IF ANOTHER
PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN WITHOUT ANYTHING IN IT, BUT WHAT IS MISSING
HERE ENTIRELY IS A RULER AND A POINTER OR A NOTATION THAT NORTH
IS TO THE TOP OR TO THE BOTTOM, TO THE SIDE, WHATEVER THE
PHOTOGRAPH IS, HOWEVER IT WAS ORIENTED.
MR. BLASIER: THAT'S ALL.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, IS IT IMPORTANT TO --
WHEN PROCESSING A CRIME SCENE, TO PRESERVE BLOOD SPATTER
EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON ITEMS IN THE DIRECT -- IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY OF THE CRIME SCENE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH BLOOD SPATTER THAT APPEARS
ON THE GATED AREA IN THE -- SURROUNDING THE AREA WHERE MR.
GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND?
A I'VE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO ME,
YES.
Q AND WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATELY PRESERVING
THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE?
A EVENTUALLY, A SCENE LIKE THIS, THERE WOULD BE SOME
ATTEMPT TO INTERPRET WHAT HAPPENED, RECONSTRUCT THE EVENTS; AND
ALL THAT CAST-OFF BLOOD OR SPATTERED BLOOD, OR WHATEVER THE
REASON THAT BLOOD APPEARED THERE, COULD BE USED TO DETERMINE WHAT
HAPPENED.
Q AND FROM THE MATERIAL THAT YOU REVIEWED, DO YOU HAVE
AN OPINION ON WHETHER THAT ASPECT OF THE CRIME SCENE WAS
ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT MATERIALS HAVE YOU REVIEWED
WITH RESPECT TO THAT AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE?
A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO ME.
Q AND FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO YOU,
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THOSE WERE THE ONLY PHOTOGRAPHS TO
PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE, DO YOU FEEL THAT --
MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: -- DO YOU FEEL THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT YOU WERE PROVIDED ADEQUATELY DOCUMENT THE BLOOD SPATTER ON
THAT AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.
THE COURT: WE'RE VAGUE BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU
REVIEWED WERE WHAT? WHAT DID THEY SHOW?
A REFERRING TO THE -- TO THE GATE AND TO THE RAILING?
Q THE METAL FENCE THAT SURROUNDED THE AREA WHERE MR.
GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND.
A THERE WAS AN ASSORTMENT OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOWED
VARIOUS BLOOD, WHAT WOULD BE CALLED BLOOD SPATTER OR SPLATTER.
Q NOW, IF THAT IS ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED THROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEASUREMENTS AND ANY OTHER MEANS AVAILABLE, IS IT
POSSIBLE TO ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IN
THAT AREA, AT LEAST PARTIALLY, THAT ACCOUNTED FOR THAT BLOOD?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE
PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WE HAVE HAD TESTIMONY THAT
CRIMINALIST FUNG AT THE DIRECTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE REMOVED THE
GLOVE IN THE BAG THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT THE ROCKINGHAM AREA AND
TOOK IT INTO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, CLIMBING OVER MR. GOLDMAN'S
BODY I BELIEVE TO SHOW IT TO DETECTIVE LANGE.
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
RESTATE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TESTIMONY
THAT DENNIS FUNG TOOK THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE INSIDE OF A BAG INTO
THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO DETECTIVE LANGE?
A YES, I AM.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS AN
APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUE TO USE?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO APPROPRIATE. NO FOUNDATION.
ALSO, IT WASN'T A TECHNIQUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE AN OPINION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
A MY OPINION, THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE TAKEN BACK INTO
THE CRIME SCENE FROM ONE CRIME SCENE TO THE OTHER.
Q WHY IS THAT?
A IT'S JUST BAD PRACTICE. IT -- THERE'S A CHANCE THAT
SOMETHING CAN GO WRONG AND CONTAMINATION COULD OCCUR.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO MR.
SIMPSON'S REFERENCE BLOOD, SPECIFICALLY THAT IT WAS TAKEN BY
DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK TO ROCKINGHAM?
A I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS
APPROPRIATE FOR DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO DO?
A I HAVE AN --
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AS TO APPROPRIATE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
A THE SAME EXACT SITUATION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY
EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM ONE LOCATION BACK INTO ANOTHER
LOCATION UNLESS THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
REASON, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY REASON WOULD BE THAT IMPORTANT.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED DETECTIVE LANGE'S TESTIMONY WITH
RESPECT TO WHY THE HANDS OF THE VICTIMS WERE NOT BAGGED
SEPARATELY PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE CORONER MOVED THE BODIES?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HIS REASON FOR THAT?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR
NOT IT IS ACCEPTABLE IN MOVING BODIES FROM A CRIME SCENE THAT
THEY -- THE ENTIRE BODY BE CONTAINED IN PLASTIC AS OPPOSED TO THE
HANDS BEING INDIVIDUALLY BAGGED?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS
EXPERTISE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION PROPERLY, IT IS
INAPPROPRIATE TO NOT BAG THE HANDS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WHY IS THAT?
A IN ANY TYPE OF CRIME WHERE THERE'S POTENTIAL CONTACT
BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF TRACE EVIDENCE
UNDERNEATH THE FINGERNAILS, AROUND THE HANDS; AND ONCE THE
REMAINS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A BODY BAG, THE CHANCES OF THAT
EVIDENCE BEING CONTAMINATION -- CONTAMINATED BY SOME OF THE
VICTIM'S OWN BLOOD WHICH IS GOING TO BE LOOSE IN THAT BAG IS
OBVIOUS.
Q AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR WHEN BODIES
ARE TRANSPORTED IN A SHEET OR A BODY BAG WITH RESPECT TO
PRESERVING THE CONTAINER THAT WAS USED TO CARRY THE BODIES?
A I RECOMMEND THAT THAT CONTAINER BE RETAINED.
Q WHY IS THAT?
A BECAUSE KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE, SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL
CAN FALL OFF OF THE REMAINS, OFF THE CLOTHING; AND IF IT'S IN THE
BOTTOM OF A BODY BAG AND THAT BODY BAG IS DISPOSED OF, SO IS THE
EVIDENCE.
Q DID YOU REVIEW THE TESTIMONY OF I BELIEVE IT WAS MR.
FUNG WHO TESTIFIED THAT MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE BLOOD WAS PLACED
IN A GARBAGE BAG AT ROCKINGHAM TO BE TRANSPORTED BACK TO SID?
A DID I HEAR THAT? YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: INCOMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DID YOU REVIEW THE TESTIMONY OF
DENNIS FUNG THAT HE PLACED OR THAT THE REFERENCE BLOOD OF MR.
SIMPSON WAS PLACED IN A GARBAGE BAG AT ROCKINGHAM TO BE
TRANSPORTED TO SID?
MR. GOLDBERG: INCOMPLETE. IT'S ALSO LEADING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. NO. INAPPROPRIATE WAY
TO POSE THE QUESTION. REFERENCE SAMPLE INSIDE THE GRAY ENVELOPE
INSIDE THE GARBAGE BAG.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE REFERENCE SAMPLE INSIDE THE
GRAY ENVELOPE INSIDE THE TRASH BAG. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT
TESTIMONY?
A HAVE I REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY?
Q YES.
A I WATCHED THE TESTIMONY.
Q AND ALSO, DID YOU WATCH THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. FUNG
TESTIFYING THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA, WHO WAS CARRYING THAT GARBAGE
BAG, WAS NEVER INFORMED OR WAS NOT INFORMED WHEN TRANSPORTING AS
TO WHAT WAS IN IT?
A YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AN
ACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
HIS EXPERTISE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THERE ARE TWO TO THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE BAG ITSELF IS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF ANYTHING
INHERENTLY WRONG WITH THAT AS LONG AS IT'S A FRESH BAG. THE
CONTAINER -- THIS CONTAINER I'M HOLDING UP, THIS ANALYZED
EVIDENCE CONTAINER THAT IS USED --
THE COURT: 160 --
THE WITNESS: -- FOR BLOOD VIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEALED AND
--
THE COURT: 163-H.
THE WITNESS: -- AND IT'S -- "INAPPROPRIATE" MAY NOT BE THE
RIGHT WORD, BUT IT'S A BIG CHANCE OF GIVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT
TO SOMEBODY TO CARRY AND NOT INFORM HIM WHAT'S INSIDE OF IT
BECAUSE OF THE FRAGILE NATURE OF A GLASS VIAL.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH TESTIMONY TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE ENVELOPE WITH THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES
CONTAINED WITHIN THEM, THAT AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT ITEM WAS
COLLECTED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, ONE OF THE LENSES
DISAPPEARED?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH TESTIMONY TO
THE EFFECT THAT ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE TWO LENSES IN THE GLASSES
THAT WERE IN THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE AND NOW THERE'S ONLY ONE LENS?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IF IT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT
THERE WAS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED IN ONE FORM
AND PART OF THAT EVIDENCE HAD DISAPPEARED AT SOME LATER TIME,
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE OF THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
HIS EXPERTISE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, THAT THEY SHOULD
MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE IS MISSING.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU AND I DISCUSSED THE OTHER DAY
THE CONCEPT OF A TEAM APPROACH TO PROCESSING A CRIME SCENE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.
THE WITNESS: YES, WE DID.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND DOES THAT TIE INTO WHAT YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, HAVING THE CORONER AND THE CRIMINALIST AND
THE DETECTIVES WORKING TOGETHER?
A YES.
Q WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?
A IN A DEATH INVESTIGATION, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE
THREE DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE
OF THEIR VARYING LEVELS OF EXPERTISE.
THE DETECTIVE OR THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR HAS A
PARTICULAR FUNCTION. THE DEPUTY CORONER IS A -- WHAT I WOULD
CONSIDER A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATOR, HAS A SPECIFIC FUNCTION THAT
COMPLIMENTS THE INVESTIGATORS'S KNOWLEDGE, AND THE CRIMINALIST'S
JOB IS TO COME TO THE CRIME SCENE WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF CRIME SCENE
RECONSTRUCTION, A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY --
THAT THEY CAN LOOK FOR AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF CRIMES AND HOW TO
COLLECT AND MAINTAIN THAT EVIDENCE IN AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE ITS
ORIGINAL CONDITION AND IN A -- THERE IS ANOTHER PERSON IN THIS
TEAM, AND I DON'T THINK YOU MENTIONED --
Q AND WHO IS THAT?
A THE FIELD EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN OR THE WHAT SOME PEOPLE
CALL THE IDENTIFICATION INVESTIGATOR.
Q INCIDENTALLY, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER
DENNIS FUNG AND ANDREA MAZZOLA, GIVEN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY
PROCESSED THESE TWO CRIME SCENES, WHETHER THEY WERE PRACTICING
CRIMINALISTICS IF YOU WILL?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR
THAT. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT IS MY OPINION THAT THEY WERE NOT
PRACTICING CRIMINALISTICS AS IT SHOULD BE DONE AT A CRIME SCENE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND HOW ARE YOU USING THAT TERM,
"CRIMINALISTICS"?
A AS A FORENSIC SCIENCE INVESTIGATOR THAT IS TRAINED
AND IS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE TYPES OF EVIDENCE, HOW THEY SHOULD BE
COLLECTED AND PRESERVED.
MR. BLASIER: MAY I HAVE A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY
THAT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE HAD
BEEN MOVED IN SOME FASHION. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WOULD IT BE TO
DETERMINE WHO MOVED IT, HOW IT WAS MOVED AND WHY IT WAS MOVED?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION UNLESS HE'S FAMILIAR
WITH LAPD --
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THAT DEPENDS
ON THE TIMING AND WHEN IT'S NOTED. IF THE -- IF THE CRIME SCENE
CRIMINALIST COMES TO THE SCENE AND SEES SOMETHING IN ONE
LOCATION, AND A LITTLE BIT LATER, HE SEES IT IN ANOTHER LOCATION,
IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY OR HER RESPONSIBILITY RIGHT THEN TO TRY
TO FIND OUT WHY OR WHO MOVED THIS.
IF IT'S DISCOVERED THROUGH SOME OTHER METHOD LATER ON
THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHY, THEN IT'S A DEPARTMENTAL ISSUE AND IT WOULD
BE EITHER THE CHIEF CRIMINALIST OR THE DIRECTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, WHO IS MOVING THINGS UNAUTHORIZED. AND
I'LL ASSUME THIS WAS UNAUTHORIZED MOVEMENT AT THE CRIME SCENE,
AND IF -- OR POSSIBLY, THE DEPARTMENT'S IF THEY HAVE THAT TYPE OF
FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. RAGLE, HAVE YOU EXAMINED
THE -- MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO IN THIS CASE?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: AND I'D LIKE TO PUT UP PEOPLE'S 197-A.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: HAVE YOU SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED THE
AREA OF THE DOOR SILL, THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE DOORS, THE FRONT
DOORS OF THE CAR, THE AREA THAT'S BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU -- I WANT YOU TO ASSUME
HYPOTHETICALLY THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE OBSERVED
WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME BLOOD MARKS ON THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE
DOOR AND I WANT YOU TO ASSUME FURTHER THAT CRIMINALIST FUNG
EXAMINED THE DOOR SILL AREA IN AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THOSE MARKS
AND CIRCLED THE THREE AREAS THAT YOU SEE ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
DO YOU HAVE THAT IN MIND.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AS TO
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: I WANT YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY
THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE OBSERVED FOUR BRUSH-LIKE
MARKS THAT APPEARED TO BE BLOODSTAINS ON THE DOOR SILL AREA OF
THE BRONCO.
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR WITH THE
COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
ISN'T THE ISSUE AT THIS POINT, MR. BLASIER, WHETHER
OR NOT ONE CAN SEE THESE BLOOD SPOTS THAT ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR
EXHIBIT WHILE THE DOOR IS OPEN OR CLOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S WHY I STOPPED YOU. ASK HIM THE QUESTION, "DID
YOU SEE -- DID YOU INSPECT THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE BRONCO ON
THIS PARTICULAR DATE AND TIME WITH THE DOOR OPEN AND DOOR CLOSED?
"YES, I DID.
"DID YOU SEE THIS STUFF HERE?
"YES, I DID. YES, I DID."
ISN'T THAT THE ISSUE?
MR. BLASIER: THAT'S THE ISSUE. BUT THESE ARE THE MARKS
FUNG WAS SENT BACK OUT TO LOOK FOR BASED ON FUHRMAN'S STATEMENT
THAT THEY WERE ON THE OUTSIDE SOMEWHERE NEAR THE DOOR.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THE ISSUE IS CAN YOU
SEE IT IF THE DOOR IS OPEN, DOOR IS CLOSED.
MR. GOLDBERG: HE KEEPS SAYING "OUTSIDE SILL." I THINK HE
SAID OUT -- THE BOTTOM OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ITSELF. SO THIS WHOLE
ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: NO, IT'S NOT IRRELEVANT.
MR. GOLDBERG: BUT THEY'RE ALSO --
THE COURT: IT GOES DIRECTLY TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
CREDIBILITY.
MR. GOLDBERG: BUT THEY ARE MISSTATING THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: THEY ARE.
MR. GOLDBERG: THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, WITH A LOT OF
QUESTIONS, THEY WANT TO DO EVERYTHING IN AN ARGUMENTATIVE WAY.
THEY DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL CLOSING ARGUMENT TO MAKE THE
ARGUMENT.
THE COURT: I KNOW. THAT'S THE POINT I'M MAKING IF YOU
WERE LISTENING CAREFULLY TO WHAT I JUST SAID.
MR. GOLDBERG: I THOUGHT --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'VE HEARD ENOUGH. THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT
TO --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. WE'RE MISSING NO. 1.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, WITH RESPECT TO THE -- ON
THE PHOTOGRAPH UP ON THE SCREEN, THE CIRCLED AREA ON THE RIGHT
AND THE TWO SPOTS THAT APPEAR TO BE CIRCLED -- THE TOP CIRCLE IN
THE DIAGRAM, YOU HAVE THOSE IN MIND?
A YES.
Q BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE BRONCO, THE TIMES
YOU'VE LOOKED AT IT, CAN YOU SEE THOSE TWO CIRCLED AREAS IF THE
DOOR IS CLOSED?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, NO FOUNDATION THAT THE DOOR WAS
ON IT WHEN HE INSPECTED IT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: LET ME COMMENT ABOUT THIS PHOTOGRAPH FIRST,
IF I MAY, BECAUSE I CAN'T --
THE COURT: NO. YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, CAN YOU TELL FROM THAT
PHOTOGRAPH -- CAN YOU GET ORIENTED WITH THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A I CAN GET ORIENTED WITH THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YES.
Q OKAY.
A AND IN MY OPINION, YOU COULD NOT SEE TWO OF THESE
LOCATIONS IF THE DOOR WAS SHUT.
Q AND WHICH TWO?
A THE ONE FURTHEST -- IT'S COMING OFF THE SCREEN. THE
FURTHEST TO THE RIGHT AND THEN OF THE TWO ON THE LEFT, THE UPPER
ONE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS FOR THE RECORD, WE
SHOULD HAVE THOSE TWO -- AN ARROW PUT ON THOSE TWO AND PRINT IT
OUT AND NUMBER THIS EXHIBIT OUR NEXT IN ORDER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THIS WILL BE 1330.
(DEFT'S 1330 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. RAGLE, DO YOU HAVE AN
OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE BOTTOM LEFT CIRCLE WOULD BE VISIBLE
WITH THE DOOR CLOSED?
A I BELIEVE IT WOULD, YES.
Q OKAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT ARROWS HAVE BEEN
PLACED ON THE TWO CIRCLES WHICH MR. RAGLE HAS TESTIFIED ARE AREAS
WHICH COULD NOT BE SEEN WITH THE DOOR CLOSED.
THAT WILL BE MARKED AS DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1330.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME JUST CLARIFY MY EARLIER
QUESTION.
WITH RESPECT TO NOT THE CIRCLES THEMSELVES, BUT THE
MARKINGS INSIDE THE CIRCLE ON THE TWO THAT HAVE THE ARROW ON
THEM, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE SPOTS INSIDE THOSE CIRCLES
WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE UNLESS THE DOOR WAS OPENED?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAYBE WE JUST COULD KEEP THAT UP FOR A
SECOND JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WASTE TIME.
THE COURT: SURE. GOOD PLACE TO START.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GOLDBERG:
Q MR. RAGLE --
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I START, YOUR HONOR?
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. RAGLE, IF YOU LOOK IN THE UPPER
LEFT-HAND CORNER OF THIS, CAN YOU SEE THE INITIALS "DF" FOR
DENNIS FUNG?
MR. GOLDBERG: THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A GLARE. MAYBE WE
CAN MOVE IT -- MOVE IT OVER A LITTLE BIT.
THE WITNESS: I SEE THOSE INITIALS, YES.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
AND WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TESTIMONY THAT
THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH WAS TESTIFIED TO BY DENNIS FUNG, NOT
BY MARK FUHRMAN?
A THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
Q YES.
A AS FAR AS THESE MARKINGS, YES.
Q YES.
AND WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TESTIMONY THAT
MARK FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE SAW BLOODSTAINS ON THE LOWER
PORTION OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR AS OPPOSED TO THE SILL?
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. HIS OBJECTION WAS
SUSTAINED ON --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
NOW, WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU LAST SAW THE BRONCO IN THIS
CASE, SIR?
A MARCH 14TH I BELIEVE OF 1995.
Q AND IS THAT WHEN YOU MADE THE EXAMINATION THAT WAS
THE SUBJECT OF THE MOST RECENT LINE OF INQUIRY BY THE DEFENSE
REGARDING THE BRONCO?
A NO.
Q HAD YOU SEEN IT SINCE THEN?
A NO. NO. I HAD SEEN IT BEFORE ALSO, BUT THAT -- IN
TERMS OF LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SHAPE OF THIS AREA OF THE
DOOR AND THE -- WHAT WOULD BE THE ENCLOSED AREA OF THE DOOR SHUT,
THAT'S CORRECT. THE DOOR WAS NOT ON IT AT THE TIME THAT I LOOKED
AT IT, BUT THE OTHER SIDE DOOR WAS.
Q OKAY.
SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE SIDE THAT'S
DEPICTED IN THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT
THE DOOR HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND SO YOU'RE FORMING YOUR OPINION AS TO WHAT COULD
OR COULD NOT BE SEEN BASED UPON YOUR EXAMINATION ON THE 14TH OF
MARCH WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE DRIVER'S DOOR IN PLACE;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF YOUR
EXPERTISE. PLEASE LET US KNOW.
BUT IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING FROM OWNING CARS AND
OBSERVING CARS AND BEING A CRIMINALIST PRESUMABLY DOING
INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING CARS, THAT SOMETIMES THE ALIGNMENT IS
DIFFERENT ON ONE DOOR AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER?
A THAT IS INDEED POSSIBLE.
Q NOW, MR. RAGLE, YOU'VE BEEN CRITICAL OF SOME OF THE
PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS CASE TO DO THE CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I AM CRITICAL.
MR. GOLDBERG: WE CAN TAKE THE PHOTOGRAPH DOWN.
OKAY. THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE BRONCO, IF
BLOOD HAD BEEN OBSERVED ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR
OF THE BRONCO AND SOMEONE HAD THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT
>FROM A FORENSIC SCIENCE STANDPOINT, IF YOU HAD BEEN OUT ON THE
CRIME -- AT THE CRIME SCENE AS A CRIMINALIST, WOULD YOU HAVE
WANTED TO REMOVE THAT EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE AS OPPOSED TO
REMOVING IT AT SOME LATER POINT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WOULD THE REASON FOR THAT BE?
A BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO TRANSPORT A CAR,
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ENCLOSED
CARRIER, SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN TO THAT SAMPLE.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, JUST VERY SIMPLY, IN THE 14- OR
15-MILE DRIVE OR HOWEVER LONG IT IS BACK TO THE PRINT SHED FROM
THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM, THERE WOULD BE A GREAT LIKELIHOOD OF
PERHAPS THAT EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR BECOMING
WASHED OFF OR SOMEHOW OBLITERATED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A COULD BE VERY POSSIBLE IF IT'S -- YOU KNOW, THEY
DRIVE THROUGH WATER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q AND WE'D BE VERY CONCERNED THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE
TO FIND THAT LATER ON; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
Q NOW, SIR, BASED UPON YOUR EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE AS A
CRIMINALIST AND ALSO TRAINING POLICE OFFICERS, IS IT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT POLICE OFFICERS HAVE OFTEN SUBMITTED ITEMS FOR
ANALYSIS AT THE LABORATORY THAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE BLOOD THAT
TURNED OUT NOT TO BE BLOOD?
A YES. OR NOT TO BE HUMAN BLOOD OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
Q AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A
TINY LITTLE DOT OF A REDDISH BROWNISH SPOT FOR THE POLICE OFFICER
WHO IS NOT TRAINED IN CRIMINALISTICS, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO TELL
FOR SURE WHETHER YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S BLOOD
AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT'S JUST A LITTLE DOT OF MUD OR SOME
OTHER MATERIAL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SO WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED IF A POLICE OFFICER WERE TO
LOOK AT A BRONCO DOOR AND PERHAPS MISTAKE SOMETHING FOR BLOOD
THAT WAS NOT BLOOD?
A THAT COULD HAPPEN.
Q AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE DOTS
OF BLOOD THAT WE SAW IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS JUST SHOWN TO THE
JURY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN OR WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE FROM THE
EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO WITH THE DOOR CLOSED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT DOT WAS BLOOD.
BUT WHATEVER THAT IS IS LOW ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD BE VISIBLE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR
QUALIFICATIONS AND YOUR EXPERIENCE.
SIR, DID I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY TO INDICATE THAT
YOU WERE ACTUALLY A POLICE OFFICER AT ONE TIME?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND DID YOU EVER ACHIEVE THE STATUS OF DETECTIVE?
A UH, NO.
Q OKAY.
WERE YOU --
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK HE WAS FINISHED.
THE WITNESS: I JUST WANTED TO QUALIFY THAT. AT THE TIME
THE CITY OF BERKELEY, AND I THINK EVEN TODAY, DID NOT HAVE THE
POSITION OF DETECTIVE. THE -- EACH PATROLMAN INVESTIGATED THE
CASE THAT OCCURRED ON THEIR BEAT. THE ONLY LEVEL OF NONUNIFORM
INVESTIGATORS WAS CALLED AN INSPECTOR AND THEY DID NOT WORK IN
THE FIELD. THEY COORDINATED CASES IN THE DEPARTMENT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO INVESTIGATE ANY
HOMICIDES AS A POLICE OFFICER?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU RETIRED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND NOW YOU'RE DOING CONSULTING WORK?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S PRIMARILY IN LABORATORY DESIGN?
A IN -- AND IN MANAGEMENT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ACTUALLY. THAT'S PROBABLY MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN
DOING LATELY THAN THE LABORATORY DESIGN.
Q HOW MANY PUBLIC CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORIES HAVE
CONSULTED YOU FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECIDING HOW TO REDESIGN OR
BUILD A LABORATORY SINCE THAT TIME?
A ACTUALLY HIRED ME OR CONSULTED ME?
Q YES.
A HIRED ME, TWO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, SINCE 1989, HOW MANY HOMICIDES HAVE YOU BEEN THE
PRIMARY CRIMINALIST WHO WAS INVESTIGATING THE CRIME SCENE?
A NONE.
Q AND HOW MANY CRIME SCENES, HOMICIDE CRIME SCENES
SINCE 1989 WERE YOU A SECONDARY CRIMINALIST OR ASSISTANT
CRIMINALIST INVESTIGATING THAT CRIME SCENE?
A NONE.
Q HOW MANY RAPE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS HAVE YOU
PARTICIPATED IN AS A CRIMINALIST SINCE 1989?
A NONE.
Q ANY MAJOR CRIMES OR SIGNIFICANT CRIMES SINCE THEN?
A UH, NO. NONE.
Q ANY MINOR CRIMES WHERE YOU'VE BEEN THE CRIMINALIST
WHO WAS INVESTIGATING THE CRIME SCENE SINCE 1989?
A NONE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, BETWEEN THE YEARS OF 1976 AND 1989, YOU WERE
BASICALLY IN UPPER MANAGEMENT OF THE CRIME LABORATORY, EITHER THE
DIRECTOR -- WHAT WAS THE OTHER POSITION THAT YOU MENTIONED? IT
HAD ANOTHER TITLE.
A IT'S THE SAME POSITION, JUST A DIFFERENT TITLE.
Q RIGHT.
NOW, DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, BETWEEN 1976 AND
1989, CAN YOU GIVE US THE ESTIMATION AS TO THE NUMBER OF
HOMICIDES WHERE YOU WERE THE PRIMARY CRIMINALIST INVESTIGATING
THE CRIME SCENE?
A NONE.
Q WELL, HOW MANY WERE YOU ASSISTING INVESTIGATING THE
CRIME SCENE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
A EXACT SAME NUMBER. NONE.
Q WHAT ABOUT RAPE CASES? HOW MANY RAPE CASES WERE
THERE DURING THAT TIME FRAME WHERE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING CRIMES?
A STILL TALKING ABOUT 1977 TO 1989?
Q RIGHT. YES.
A NONE.
Q MAJOR CRIMES?
A NONE.
Q MINOR CRIMES?
A NONE.
Q NOW, YOU MENTIONED TO US THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN A BOOK
-- NOT -- EXCUSE ME. NOT A BOOK. YOU HAD WRITTEN A CHAPTER IN A
BOOK REGARDING CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE TITLE OF THE BOOK AGAIN?
A PRINCIPLES OF INVESTIGATION I BELIEVE.
Q NOW, SIR, THERE ARE SOME LEADING FORENSIC TEXTBOOKS
THAT COVER THE SUBJECT OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND SOME OF THOSE ARE RICHARD SAFFERSTEIN'S BOOK
CALLED CRIMINALISTICS.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU'VE RELIED ON THIS IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS
ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVEN'T?
A NO.
Q IS THERE SOME REASON FOR THAT?
A I DON'T HAVE IT.
Q OH, YOU HAVEN'T READ WHAT MR. SAFFERSTEIN HAS TO SAY
ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A NO.
Q ISN'T HE ONE OF THE LEADING AUTHORITIES?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q BUT YOU'VE HEARD OF HIM, SIR.
A YES, I DO. I HEARD OF HIM.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE BOOK ENTITLED FORENSIC
SCIENCE AND INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINALISTICS BY PETER DE FOREST,
DR. GAENNSLEN AND LEE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I READ PART OF THAT.
Q AND THIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE A LEADING FORENSIC
TEXTBOOK; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND HAVE YOU RELIED ON PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK IN
FORMING OPINIONS ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A PORTIONS OF IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE LATER.
AND YOU'VE HEARD OF A BOOK FORENSIC SCIENCE HANDBOOK
BY RICHARD SAFFERSTEIN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I'VE HEARD OF IT.
Q AND THIS IS A LEADING TEXTBOOK THAT'S PROBABLY ON THE
SHELF OF EVERY CRIMINALIST MAYBE IN THE COUNTRY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT'S IN OUR LIBRARY.
Q AND HAVE YOU RELIED ON PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK IN
FORMING OPINIONS ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q YOU HAVEN'T?
A NO.
Q WELL, ISN'T THIS ONE OF THE LEADING BOOKS DISCUSSING
FORENSIC EVIDENCE?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHY DON'T YOU KNOW?
A BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ IT.
Q YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY OF IT?
A NO.
Q WELL, HAVE YOU READ RICHARD SAFFERSTEIN'S OTHER BOOK
ENTITLED FORENSIC SCIENCE HANDBOOK, VOLUME III?
A NO, I HAVEN'T. I HAVE READ SOME OF THAT IF THAT'S
GOT A CHAPTER IN IT BY GEORGE SENSABAUGH.
Q WELL, MR. SENSABAUGH HAS A CHAPTER IN RICHARD
SAFFERSTEIN'S EARLIER BOOK. COULD THIS BE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING
OF?
A IF IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE POLYMARKER LIKELIHOOD IN
ENZYME TYPING, YES.
Q OKAY.
AN EARLIER BOOK DEALING WITH CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES. YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WE'LL GET TO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THEN THE RICHARD SAFFERSTEIN FORENSIC SCIENCE
HANDBOOK, VOLUME III, YOU DON'T THINK YOU'VE READ THIS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A IF IT'S NOT THE ONE THAT HAS DR. SENSABAUGH'S
ARTICLE, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT ISN'T THIS ALSO A TEXT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE
FOUND ON THE SHELF OF MOST CRIMINALISTS AROUND THE COUNTRY?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I'M SURE IT MAY BE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
NOW, YOU'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FOOTWEAR
IMPRESSION EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU KNOW BILL BODZIAK OF THE FBI?
A YES, I DO.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIS BOOK CALLED FOOTWEAR
IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND HAVE YOU READ AT LEAST THE PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK
DEALING WITH CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AS IT RELATES TO FOOTWEAR?
A I'VE READ PORTIONS OF IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION
YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO.
Q YOU DON'T THINK THAT YOU'VE READ THE WHOLE --
A I HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE BOOK.
Q HAVE YOU READ ENTIRE CHAPTERS DEALING WITH CRIME
SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND ISN'T THIS ALSO A LEADING BOOK THAT WOULD
PROBABLY BE A REFERENCE THAT WOULD BE CONSULTED BY ANY
CRIMINALIST WHO IS ROUTINELY DOING FOOTWEAR EXAMINATIONS?
A YES.
Q THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE IT ON THEIR SHELF --
A I'VE SURE THEY DO.
Q -- AS A REFERENCE?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?
THE COURT: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH BARRY
FISHER OF THE CRIME LABORATORY HERE IN OUR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HIS BOOK, TECHNIQUES OF
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND HAVE YOU READ THIS BOOK?
A PORTIONS OF IT.
Q OKAY.
AND HAVE YOU RELIED ON PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK IN
FORMING OPINIONS ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, BARRY FISHER'S
BOOK?
A I'VE CONSIDERED IT, YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT CERTAIN TECHNIQUES LIKE THE
-- I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE TERMINOLOGY YOU USED.
YOU TALKED ABOUT A TECHNIQUE THAT COULD BE USED TO
TAKE DUST PRINTS OFF A SUBSTRATE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU REFER TO THAT AS?
A IT'S IN HERE. IT'S A STATIC ELECTRICAL DEVICE THAT
LIFTS PRINTS.
Q OH, THE ELECTROSTATIC DUST PRINT LIFTER?
A YES.
Q AND IS IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE PROCESSING
CRIME SCENES, THAT DEVICE HADN'T EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET?
A WHEN I WAS INVESTIGATING CRIME SCENES, YES, BUT NOT
WHILE I WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE LAB.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
YOUR HONOR, DID YOU WANT TO STOP AT THIS POINT YOU
SAID?
THE COURT: NO. JUST FINISH OUT THE HALF HOUR HERE.
MR. GOLDBERG: OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THE COURT SAID YOU
WANTED TO STOP AT 2:30.
THE COURT: NO. I DID, BUT WE GO BY THAT CLOCK.
MR. GOLDBERG: OH, OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS
COURSE THAT YOU'VE TAUGHT AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH; IS THAT
CORRECT, SIR?
A THROUGH CAL STATE LONG BEACH.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IS THIS AN UPPER DIVISION COURSE FOR CRIMINALISTS
WHO ARE GETTING A MASTERS OR PHD?
A I DON'T BELIEVE CAL STATE OFFERS ANY SUCH COURSE.
Q OKAY.
IS THIS A COURSE THAT IS PRIMARILY GEARED FOR
CRIMINALISTS OR ONE THAT IS PRIMARILY GEARED FOR POLICE OFFICERS
AND A CATEGORY OF PEOPLE THAT WE'VE REFERRED TO AS CRIME SCENE
TECHNICIANS?
A THE COURSE I REFERRED TO IS THE LATTER. I ALSO TAUGHT
A COURSE THAT TRAINED CRIMINALISTS.
Q OKAY.
WELL, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE COURSE THAT YOU WERE
REFERRING TO DURING THE DIRECT EXAMINATION HERE.
A I'M STILL DOING THAT. THE COURSE THAT I TAUGHT AT
CAL STATE LONG BEACH FOR CRIMINALISTS, I NO LONGER TEACH.
Q OKAY.
BUT THE COURSE THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO ON DIRECT
EXAMINATION WOULD THEN BE A COURSE THAT IS PRIMARILY GEARED FOR
WHAT WE WOULD OR WHAT YOU WOULD USE AS A CRIMINALIST, WHAT YOU
WOULD DESCRIBE AS A LAYPERSON?
A NO. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD --
Q IS THE COURSE GEARED FOR WHAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AS A
CRIMINALIST AS BEING LAY PEOPLE, IN OTHER WORDS, NONCRIMINALISTS?
A NO. NO. I WOULD -- I WOULD DESCRIBE THEM AS POLICE
INVESTIGATORS OR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS.
Q WELL --
A NOW, SOME OF THEM ARE UNTRAINED WHEN THEY COME TO THE
CLASS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY LAY PEOPLE.
Q OKAY.
BUT DO YOU CONSIDER A CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN TO BE A
LAYPERSON IN REFERENCE TO A CRIMINALIST WHO IS CONSIDERED TO BE A
PROFESSIONAL IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC SCIENCE?
A NO. I THINK MANY OF THE FIELD EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS
AND ID PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONALS. DEPENDS ON THEIR TIME AND THEIR
TRAINING AND THEIR EXPERIENCE.
Q BUT WHATEVER THEY ARE, YOU WOULD NOT CONSIDER THEM TO
BE FORENSIC SCIENTISTS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I CONSIDER THEM FORENSIC SCIENTISTS. I DON'T
CONSIDER THEM CRIMINALISTS.
Q YOU CONSIDER POLICE OFFICERS TO BE FORENSIC
SCIENTISTS?
A I CONSIDER A PERSON WHO APPLIES SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES
AT A CRIME SCENE SUCH AS FINGERPRINT DUSTING, COLLECTION OF --
SEARCHING CRIME SCENE WITH ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS SUCH AS THE
DEVICES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OR LASERS OR OTHER TECHNIQUES TO BE
SCIENTISTS.
Q WELL, AT ANY RATE, POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT
CRIMINALISTS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A SOME POLICE OFFICERS ARE ALSO CRIMINALISTS.
Q WELL, VERY, VERY FEW, RIGHT?
A NOW DAYS, VERY, VERY FEW.
Q OKAY.
AND EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS ARE NOT CRIMINALISTS; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q CAN YOU GIVE US -- MAYBE IF YOU CAN GIVE US A
MINUTE-LONG DEFINITION OF WHAT AN EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN IS.
A FIELD EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS
TRAINED IN DOCUMENTATION OF A CRIME SCENE, OF RECOGNIZING AND
SEARCHING FOR SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AND COLLECTING IT.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
I'LL PICK UP AFTER THE BREAK. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF
MID-AFTERNOON RECESS. REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
MR. RAGLE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. COME BACK IN 15
MINUTES.
WE'LL STAND IN RECESS FOR 15.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE, DEPUTY MAGNERA.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. RAGLE, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE
MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
MR. LARRY RAGLE IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND
UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG.
AND, MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. RAGLE, WHERE WE LEFT OFF IS,
YOU HAD JUST GIVEN US A DEFINITION OF AN EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN.
AND IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE
WHO DO NOT HAVE CRIMINALISTIC DEGREES, BUT HAVE RECEIVED SOME
TRAINING IN HOW TO GO TO A CRIME SCENE AND COLLECT EVIDENCE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IS IT TRUE THIS THESE EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS ARE
USED VERY WIDELY PROBABLY THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY AND POLICE
DEPARTMENTS IN COLLECTING EVIDENCE AT SCENES, INCLUDING HOMICIDE
SCENES?
A I BELIEVE EVERY TYPE OF CRIME SCENE.
Q AND THAT'S ALSO TRUE OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WHEN
YOU WERE WORKING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IN FACT, IS IT TRUE THAT MOST OF THE FIELD WORK THAT
WAS DONE BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS DONE BY EVIDENCE
TECHNICIANS, NOT CRIMINALISTS?
A NUMERICALLY SPEAKING, YES.
Q AND THAT WAS MOSTLY FOR COST REASONS; IS THAT TRUE?
A YES. NOT ENTIRELY, BUT FOR THE EVERYDAY TYPE OF
CRIME SCENE. FOR HOMICIDES AND OTHER MORE COMPLICATED CRIMES,
THERE VERY OFTEN IS A TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT A CRIMINALIST HAS HAD
SPECIAL TRAINING IN. FOR INSTANCE, BLOOD SPATTER INTERPRETATION,
EXPLOSIVE DEBRIS, ARSON AND DRUG -- CLANDESTINE DRUG
MANUFACTURING LABORATORIES THAT THE ID TECHNICIANS OR FIELD
TECHNICIANS HAVEN'T HAD. SO THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD -- THEY, BEING
CRIMINALISTS, WOULD GO TO THE MORE COMPLICATED CRIME SCENE.
Q WHERE THERE WAS SPECIAL TYPES OF EVIDENCE; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. SPECIAL PROBLEMS.
Q BUT YOU DID HAVE EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS,
NONCRIMINALISTS DOING THINGS LIKE COLLECTING BLOOD EVIDENCE,
DIDN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAD THEM COLLECTING EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LATER
ON BE USED FOR HAIR AND TRACE ANALYSIS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU THEN ANALYZED THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE -- I
DON'T MEAN YOU INDIVIDUALLY -- BUT YOUR LAB, AND YOU PRESENTED
YOUR FINDINGS IN COURT, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY AN
EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE FROM A
FORENSIC STANDPOINT?
A IF THE EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN HAS BEEN TRAINED PROPERLY,
YES.
Q IS IT ALSO YOUR VIEW, SIR, THAT EVEN A POLICE OFFICER
OR A POLICE OFFICER IS QUALIFIED TO COLLECT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
THAT'S GOING TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LABORATORY FOR ANALYSIS?
A IF THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED PROPERLY, YES.
Q AND IS IT ALSO YOUR VIEW THAT A POLICE OFFICER WOULD
BE QUALIFIED TO COLLECT EVIDENCE THAT'S LATER ON GOING TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE LABORATORY FOR HAIR AND TRACE SUCH AS ARTICLES
OF CLOTHING?
A WITH THE SAME STIPULATION, YES.
Q AND ALTHOUGH IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE, WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT IT IS PREFERABLE TO SEND CRIMINALISTS TO DO THE CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION AS OPPOSED TO CRIME SCENE TECHNICIANS?
A IF THE NEED IS THERE, YES.
Q NOW, GETTING BACK TO THE ISSUE OF QUALIFICATIONS,
SIR, WHEN I ASKED YOU ABOUT THESE VARIOUS BOOKS THAT YOU -- SOME
OF WHICH YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OR MANY OF WHICH YOU'RE FAMILIAR
WITH OR HEARD OF, IS THE REASON FOR READING THESE BOOKS, THIS
KIND OF MATERIAL IS SO THAT A CRIMINALIST CAN MAINTAIN CURRENT
WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNITY?
A NOT ENTIRELY. BOOKS OF THIS NATURE ARE NEVER REALLY
CURRENT BECAUSE BY THE TIME THEY'RE WRITTEN, NEW STUFF HAS COME
OUT. JOURNALS SUCH AS THE JOURNAL PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY AND BY THE -- EVEN THE NEWSLETTER, THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS AND THE JOURNAL PRODUCED IN ENGLAND,
THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SOCIETIES JOURNAL IN ENGLAND ARE CURRENT.
THEY'RE CONTEMPORANEOUS WHAT'S GOING ON WITHIN THE LAST FEW
MONTHS.
Q BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO READ THE LITERATURE THOUGH TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNITY,
WHAT THE CAPABILITIES ARE, WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, HOW TO DO THINGS,
ET CETERA?
A A TEXTBOOK LIKE THIS, THE TYPE THAT YOU REFERRED TO,
IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS BEING TRAINED OR
BEING INTRODUCED INTO THE FIELD.
Q AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT IN THE AREA OF CRIME
SCENE TECHNIQUES OR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, THERE AREN'T A LOT
OF RECENT ARTICLES IN THE JOURNALS WITH RESPECT TO HOW TO
INVESTIGATE A CRIME SCENE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT A HOT TOPIC SO
TO SPEAK IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNITY?
A THEY'RE MORE IN THE BRITISH PUBLICATION THAN IN THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY. IN THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, THEY HAVE SOME
CASE-RELATED ARTICLES DESCRIBING EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE AND THINGS
SUCH AS THAT, BUT MOST OF THAT IS RESEARCH.
Q AND SINCE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE
TESTIFYING HERE ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, DID YOU FEEL
THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO REVIEW ALL OF THE KEY LITERATURE THAT'S
AVAILABLE ON THE ISSUE OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN
PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO WHAT HE CONSIDERS KEY
LITERATURE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN BOOKS AND
PUBLICATIONS THAT DISCUSS CRIME SCENE PROCESSING THAT ARE
PARTICULARLY WELL RECOGNIZED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I ASKED YOU ABOUT HERE
THIS AFTERNOON, TRUE?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q DID YOU FEEL THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO REVIEW ALL THAT
MATERIAL IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY ON THE WITNESS STAND
HERE TODAY?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q OKAY.
AND WAS THAT BECAUSE FOR THE $35,000, YOU DIDN'T FEEL
THAT THIS WAS -- YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST BEYOND THE PALE OF
WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO HERE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THE $35,000 THAT I'VE BEEN PAID WAS TO DO
SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS, TO ATTEND SPECIFIC MEETINGS, TO MAKE CERTAIN
OBSERVATIONS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH READING TEXTBOOKS.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
NOW, IN THE AREA OF SEROLOGY, CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY,
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE AN EXPERT?
A IN DOING THE TEST? NO.
Q DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE AN EXPERT IN THE AREA
OF THE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION TEST?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IN CONDUCTING THE ANALYSIS, NO.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND ARE YOU AN EXPERT IN THE AREA
OF RFLP, DNA ANALYSIS?
A AGAIN, IN CONDUCTING THE ANALYSIS, NO.
Q DO YOU CURRENTLY CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE AN EXPERT IN
THE AREA OF HAIR AND TRACE ANALYSIS?
A IN -- I DON'T BELIEVE THE BASIC SCIENCE OF HAIR AND
TRACE ANALYSIS HAS PROGRESSED MUCH SINCE I STOPPED DOING IT.
THERE ARE SOME NEW INSTRUMENTATIONS AVAILABLE, BUT I STILL
CONSIDER MYSELF COMPETENT IN THAT TYPE OF AN EXAMINATION IF I HAD
THE EQUIPMENT.
Q WHEN'S THE LAST TIME -- WHEN DID YOU STOP DOING HAIR
AND TRACE ANALYSIS?
A WHEN I WAS PROMOTED TO THE DIRECTOR.
Q SO THAT WAS BEFORE 1976?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
SO IF THIS JURY WERE INTERESTED NOT IN A CRITIQUE OF
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRIME SCENE, BUT IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THE EFFECT WAS OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING ON THE BIOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT YOU WOULD NOT
BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO BE ABLE TO TELL US THAT?
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, ARGUMENTATIVE. AND I'D LIKE TO
APPROACH.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE
QUALIFIED TO TELL US THE EFFECT, IF ANY, THAT THE CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION HAD IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL OUTCOME OF THE DNA
TESTING IN THIS CASE?
A YES. I DO BELIEVE I COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
Q YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE QUALIFIED?
A TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, YES.
Q AND HAVE YOU RENDERED ANY ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE ABOUT
THE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS AND WHAT THEY EITHER SHOW OR DON'T SHOW?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q SO WHAT YOU'VE BASICALLY TESTIFIED TO HERE ARE THINGS
THAT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED DURING THE CRIME SCENE
PROCESSING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IN A SENSE, YES, BUT NOT COMPLETELY. I MEAN, I'M
BASING THAT STATEMENT -- THE STATEMENT THAT I SAID THAT I BELIEVE
I CAN EXPLAIN, AT LEAST HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY SOME OF THIS
EVIDENCE DEGRADED DOESN'T REQUIRE AN EXPERTISE IN KNOWING HOW TO
ANALYZE OR TO CONDUCT THE AMPLIFICATION PROCESS OF PCR OR THE
ANALYSIS OF READING THE RESULTS. I DON'T BELIEVE IT REQUIRES A
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FINESSE OF DOING THE RFLP. IT IS SIMPLY A
QUESTION OF MY EXPERIENCE WITH PREVIOUS CASES WHERE SAMPLES WERE
STORED IN PLASTIC WHILE MOIST AND THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO
THAT EVIDENCE.
Q YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO TELL US THAT WET BLOOD DEGRADES
MORE QUICKLY THAN DRY BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES.
Q IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
A NOT IN EVERY CONDITION, BUT IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Q OKAY.
BUT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, SIR, IS, IF WHAT WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS THEMSELVES, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT LOOK INTO; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DID NOT REVIEW IN ANY DETAIL THE TEST RESULTS AND
COMPARE THEM TO ANY OTHER RESULTS, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE MOST
QUALIFIED TO BE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, THE CRIME
SCENE INVESTIGATION HAD ON THE ACTUAL TEST RESULTS -- I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT DEGRADATION, BUT THE RESULTS -- WOULD BE AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AN EXPERT IN CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY AND/OR DNA
EVIDENCE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, I CERTAINLY THINK THAT SOMEBODY WHO HAS
MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE TECHNIQUES COULD ADD TO WHAT I'M SAYING,
BUT I DON'T THINK THE BASIC STATEMENT THAT I'M MAKING IS ANY
DIFFERENT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: ABOUT DEGRADATION?
A YES.
Q BUT I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT.
A WELL, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING?
Q I'M ASKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL TYPE OF RESULTS
THEMSELVES.
A WHEN YOU SAY THE "TYPE OF RESULTS," YOU MEAN -- YOU
MEAN THE SPECIFIC ANSWER?
Q YES.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN BOTH P
-- IN DNA TESTING AND/OR CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY WOULD BE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO ANSWER THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS?
A ABOUT THE RESULTS, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A THE ACTUAL -- INTERPRETING THE DOT BLOTS OR
INTERPRETING THE AUTORADS OR THINGS SUCH AS THAT AND TRYING TO
EXPLAIN WHAT TYPE OF DEGRADATION OR WHAT DEGRADATION WOULD DO TO
AFFECT THOSE, YES.
Q WELL, FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY THAT WE'RE INTERESTED
IN THE ISSUE OF CONTAMINATION. YOU'RE AWARE THAT SOME STUDIES
HAVE BEEN DONE ON THAT ISSUE, ARE YOU -- AREN'T YOU?
MR. BLASIER: WELL, OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, HAVE YOU READ ANY STUDIES BY
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ON THE ISSUE OF SAMPLE
HANDLING AND HOW IT CAN AFFECT OR WHETHER IT AFFECTS DNA TYPING
RESULTS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I'M FAMILIAR WITH MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THAT
WERE PRESENTED AT MEETINGS THAT I ATTENDED AT THE FBI ACADEMY
DEALING WITH DNA HANDLING AND SAMPLING, BUT I DON'T RECALL
ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. I MEAN, MAYBE
YOU CAN AMPLIFY OR CLARIFY THAT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU REMEMBER A STUDY THAT HAD TO
DO WITH USING DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEVICES LIKE SCISSORS,
CONTAMINATED SCISSORS TO CUT SWATCHES AND PEOPLE COUGHING OVER
THE EVIDENCE AND VARIOUS OTHER SAMPLE-HANDLING ISSUES?
A NO, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
Q YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU, FIRST OF
ALL, MR. RAGLE, WOULD YOU ALLOW THE LAWYER TO FINISH ASKING YOU
THE QUESTION, AND, MR. GOLDBERG, WOULD YOU ALLOW MR. RAGLE TO
FINISH HIS ANSWER BEFORE YOU START TO FOLLOW UP, PLEASE.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: TAKE A BREATH.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, LET'S GET INTO THE ISSUE OF
COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ABOUT
GLOVES, WEARING GLOVES AT A CRIME SCENE. ARE YOU GENERALLY
FAMILIAR WITH THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GLOVES ALWAYS HAVE TO BE WORN
AT A CRIME SCENE WHENEVER SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY AT -- ON THE CRIME
SCENE?
A IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE CRIME SCENE.
Q DID YOU SEE A PICTURE OF WHAT HAS BEEN TESTIFIED TO
AS BEING MARK FUHRMAN'S HAND POINTING AT A GLOVE?
A I DID SEE THAT PICTURE, YES.
Q AND MARK FUHRMAN'S HAND DID NOT HAVE A GLOVE ON IT;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, DO YOU?
A IF -- IF THAT'S ALL HE DID, WAS POINT.
Q OKAY.
SO THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN MADE OF PEOPLE WEARING
GLOVES UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE IS A FALSE ISSUE;
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES HIS TESTIMONY.
ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: BUT AT ANY RATE, SIR, IF SOMEONE IS
ACTUALLY STANDING AT A CRIME SCENE AND NOT WEARING GLOVES, YOU DO
NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, IS THAT CORRECT, EVEN IF THEY'RE
POINTING TO A PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
A IN -- UH, YES. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO ANYBODY
WHO IS WALKING INTO THE CRIME SCENE AND JUST THERE MOMENTARILY
NOT WEARING GLOVES.
Q OKAY.
IN FACT, DID YOU PARTICIPATE YOURSELF IN A SEARCH OF
THE BRONCO ON AUGUST THE 26TH?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT GOES TO CRIME SCENE PROCESSING,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU ALWAYS -- WELL, HAVE
YOU ALWAYS WORN GLOVES WHEN YOU'RE AT A CRIME SCENE AND YOUR
HANDS ARE VERY CLOSE TO A PIECE OF EVIDENCE? SAY -- SAY THAT
THERE'S A SPOT OF BLOOD OVER HERE ON THIS BOOK THAT I'M GOING TO
COLLECT. IF MY HAND IS ANYWHERE NEAR THAT SPOT, WOULD YOU SAY
THAT THAT IS A SITUATION WHICH GLOVES SHOULD BE WORN?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE. HE
DIDN'T TALK ABOUT GLOVES.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE USE OF GLOVES FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND
OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE HAS EVOLVED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. AND
SO JUST TO PICK UP A BOOK EVEN 10 YEARS AGO WOULD PROBABLY NOT
REQUIRE PUTTING ON GLOVES. IF IT'S A BOOK -- NOW, IF IT'S A BOOK
WITH BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SPATTERED ON IT, THAT CHANGES IT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NO. I'M NOT SAYING PICK IT UP.
I'M JUST SAYING IF YOUR HANDS ARE NEAR IT. I DON'T NEED TO USE
GLOVES IN THAT SITUATION, DO I?
A DEPENDS ON THE -- ON WHAT'S GOING ON AT THAT TIME,
WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN THE ROOM, WHEREVER YOU'RE AT.
I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, IN THIS ROOM, CERTAINLY NOT.
IN A CRIME SCENE TODAY, IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
SCENE, WHETHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING, NOT JUST GLOVES, BUT OTHER
TYPES OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SHOULD BE WORN, AND IT'S A DECISION
THAT HAS TO BE MADE BY THE CRIME SCENE TEAM.
Q AND THAT MOSTLY HAS TO DO WITH THE FEAR OF
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; IS THAT CORRECT?
A AS I SAID, THIS HAS EVOLVED. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL
CONCERN THAT MOST INVESTIGATORS HAD, IS OTHER TYPES OF -- YOU
KNOW, NOT THE EVIDENCE, BUT THEM, THEY DID NOT WANT TO GET
CONTAMINATED.
Q IF YOU WERE SEARCHING A PIECE OF EVIDENCE, LET'S SAY
THE BRONCO, AND THERE WAS SOME BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THAT
BRONCO, WOULD YOU PUT YOUR HAND IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THAT
BLOOD, NOT TOUCHING IT, BUT WITHIN A FEW INCHES OF IT WITHOUT
WEARING GLOVES?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I BE HEARD?
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND YOU'RE ALSO AWARE THAT A LOT OF
TESTIMONY HAS BEEN ELICITED ABOUT HAIR NETS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A HAIR NETS?
Q HAIR NETS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: UH, I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OF HAIR NETS.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OR HEAD COVERINGS, THINGS --
A HEAD COVERINGS, I DO BELIEVE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT --
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
Q AND IS IT YOUR VIEW, SIR, THAT A CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT NEED TO WEAR A HAIR NET WHEN THEY'RE AT THE
CRIME SCENE?
A WELL, I ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT AT A SCENE WHERE
THERE IS BLOOD, THAT BOOTIES, HAIR NET AND PAPER -- DISPOSAL
PAPER SUIT BE WORN.
Q WELL, IF YOU WERE SEARCHING THE BRONCO, WOULD YOU
HAVE WORN A HAIR NET?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE PICTURE
THAT WE HAVE MARKED AS DEFENSE LAST IN ORDER --
MR. GOLDBERG: YOU DIDN'T WRITE A NUMBER ON IT.
THE COURT: WAS THAT 16 -- I'M SORRY.
MR. GOLDBERG: 1330.
YOUR HONOR, MAYBE WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I'LL
JUST WRITE A NUMBER ON THE BACK OF THAT. OH, THIS IS OUR COPY.
I'M SORRY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO
1330 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A WELL, I CAN SEE EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHOSE INITIALS IT
IS IN THE CORNER.
Q OKAY.
WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF THE
BRONCO ON AUGUST THE 26TH?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: WHAT DAY WERE YOU THERE? THAT WAS IN MARCH,
WASN'T IT, OF '95?
THE WITNESS: I -- BOTH.
THE COURT: BOTH.
ALL RIGHT.
MARCH OF '95.
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S ALL.
NO. HE SAID HE WAS THERE BOTH.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. BUT THE ONLY THING THAT WAS
ELICITED ON DIRECT WAS MARCH OF '95.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
AND THE REASON THAT YOU INDICATE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD
WEAR LAB COATS OR HAIR NETS IS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES; IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THERE ARE THREE REASONS.
ONE IS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. THE SECOND IS TO
PROTECT THE CRIME SCENE FROM ANYTHING FALLING OFF OF THEM ONTO
THE CRIME SCENE, AND THE THIRD IS TO IDENTIFY THEM AS ONE OF THE
-- AND -- ONE OF THE ONLY FOUR PEOPLE OR FIVE PEOPLE, DEPENDING
ON THE SITUATION, THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CRIME SCENE.
SO, IN ESSENCE, IT'S A UNIFORM THAT IF SOMEBODY ELSE
IS IN THE CRIME SCENE WITHOUT ALL THIS STUFF ON, YOU KNOW THEY
SHOULDN'T BE THERE, AND AS A MEMBER, YOU CAN TELL THEM TO LEAVE.
THERE ARE THREE PURPOSES.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
AT THE ORANGE COUNTY CRIME LAB WHEN YOU LEFT, WERE
PEOPLE ROUTINELY WEARING --
A AT CERTAIN TYPES OF CRIME SCENES.
Q BUT NOT ALL TYPES OF CRIME SCENES; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NOT ALL TYPES OF CRIME SCENES.
Q USUALLY WHEN THEY WOULD WEAR LAB COATS AND HAIR NETS
AND PROTECTIVE GARMENTS, IT WAS WHEN THEY WERE USING CHEMICALS
FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A WHEN I LEFT, WE WERE NOT DOING PCR.
Q NO. I MEAN CHEMICALS TO ENHANCE BLOOD AT THE CRIME
SCENE SUCH AS LUMINOL AND THE LIKE.
A WHEN I WAS THERE, WE DIDN'T USE ANY LUMINOL. BUT
BASICALLY YOUR ANSWER IS CORRECT, THAT PRIMARILY PEOPLE WERE
TRYING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AT THAT TIME.
Q AND WHAT ABOUT BOOTIES? IS THAT STANDARD AT CRIME
SCENES?
A IT'S BECOMING STANDARD.
Q IS IT STANDARD AT CRIME SCENES?
A I THINK IT IS NOW.
Q ARE PEOPLE COMMONLY WEARING BOOTIES AT CRIME SCENES
AT THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT?
A I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
Q WERE THEY WHEN YOU LEFT?
A NO.
Q AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO ANY CRIME SCENES THAT WERE IN
PROGRESS BEING INVESTIGATED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT AND
TODAY'S DATE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: HAVE I -- I HAVE NOT BEEN TO ANY CRIME
SCENES. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S OKAY TO
USE CLEAN COTTON SWATCHES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING
BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT THE SUBSTRATE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, PARTICULARLY THE
MEXICAN PAVING TILES, WERE APPROPRIATE FOR USING A CHISEL OR SOME
TYPE OF INSTRUMENT TO CHIP THE BLOOD OFF?
A THE -- DID I DO ANYTHING? NO.
Q AND IF THE BLOOD IS PARTIALLY ABSORBED INTO A POROUS
SURFACE, IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE AS MUCH OF THE BLOOD AS YOU CAN ON
RELATIVELY SMALL DOTS, IS THE CLOTH SWATCH TECHNIQUE AN
APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUE?
A I BELIEVE BEFORE, I SAID THAT IT WAS, BUT I ALSO
QUALIFIED IT BY SAYING THAT, IF POSSIBLE, SOME OF THE SAMPLES ---
THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST AN ATTEMPT TO REMOVE SOME OF THE SAMPLE
WITHOUT WETTING IT. IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN SOME MOIST
REMOVAL IS PERMISSIBLE.
Q AND IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
IT WAS POSSIBLE TO USE ANOTHER TECHNIQUE HERE?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q BUT JUST USING COMMON SENSE, IS A DOT OF BLOOD ON
CONCRETE OR A POROUS SURFACE GENERALLY GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO
SCRAPE UP?
A DIFFICULT, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE I HAVE DONE IT
AT CRIME SCENES.
Q BUT GENERALLY, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT?
A IT TAKES TIME AND MORE WORK. THE SWATCH IS QUICKER.
Q IS IT OKAY TO USE DISTILLED WATER FOR THE PURPOSES OF
MOISTENING THE SWATCHES?
A IT'S REQUIRED.
Q OKAY.
AND IS IT OKAY TO USE CLEAN INSTRUMENTS AS OPPOSED TO
STERILE INSTRUMENTS?
A STERILE IS NOT NECESSARY.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTING SAMPLES AND
AIR-DRYING THEM AT THE SCENE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FORENSIC
SCIENCE LITERATURE SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT YOU SHOULD ALWAYS
AIR-DRY AT THE SCENE OR SOMETIMES AIR-DRY AT THE SCENE?
A YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE TO -- TO QUALIFY THAT ANSWER BY
OF COURSE SAYING WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE AT THE SCENE. I MEAN,
IF THE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT AIR DRYING IMMEDIATELY COULD
CONTAMINATE SOMETHING BECAUSE OF AIR MOVEMENT OR SOMETHING SUCH
AS THAT.
OUR -- WHEN I SAY OUR, THE ORANGE COUNTY IS EQUIPPED
WITH A DEVICE THAT'S SORT OF A PROTECTIVE DEVICE THAT CAN BE USED
TO PUT NOT SWATCHES, BUT SWABS, THE COTTON SWABS IN IT, AND AIR
MOVES GENTLY THROUGH IT. SO THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE ANSWER TO THAT
IF THERE ARE SOME -- SOME EXTRANEOUS CONDITIONS. BUT MY BELIEF
IS THAT IN THIS SITUATION, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN -- THEY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRIED.
Q NOW, SIR, YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE BOOKS THAT YOU
CONSIDER IN PART WAS THE FORENSIC SCIENCE AND INTRODUCTION TO
CRIMINALISTICS;
IS THAT CORRECT?
A IS THAT DR. LEE'S BOOK?
Q YES. AND DE FOREST.
SIR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VIEW THAT SOMETIMES IT MAY
BE BETTER TO AIR-DRY BLOOD SAMPLES BEFORE COLLECTING THEM OR
PACKAGING THEM FOR TRANSPORTATION TO THE LABORATORY?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU WANT TO SHOW THAT TO MR. BLASIER
FIRST?
MR. GOLDBERG: I HAVE -- I'M JUST ASKING HIM A QUESTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU AGREE THAT --
MR. BLASIER: LET ME READ IT FIRST.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO OBJECTION AS LONG AS
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH'S READ.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I WAS ONLY INTENDING ON READING PART
OF IT. IF COUNSEL WANTS THE REST, HE CAN READ IT LATER.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. BLASIER: WELL, I OBJECT TO HIM READING PART OF IT.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU CAN DO THAT ON REDIRECT IF YOU
LIKE.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VIEW
THAT --
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: "SOMETIMES IT MAY
BE BETTER TO AIR-DRY BLOOD SAMPLES BEFORE COLLECTING THEM OR
PACKAGING THEM FOR TRANSPORTATION TO THE LABORATORY. THE
DECISION ABOUT HOW BEST TO COLLECT BLOOD EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MADE
BY CRIME SCENE SEARCHERS IN CONSULTATION WITH LABORATORY
ANALYSTS. LABORATORY ANALYSTS ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO KNOW
WHAT THEY ARE OR NOT EQUIPPED TO DO AND WHAT KINDS OF SAMPLES
THEY ARE SET UP TO HANDLE."
SIR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A YES. YOU KNOW, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.
Q WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE CONTEXT AND PERHAPS
--
A YES.
Q -- READ MORE OF IT?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: WHERE WERE YOU?
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: 245, THE PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS WITH
THE WORD "SOMETIMES."
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: WELL, MAY I READ THE FEW LINES JUST BEFORE
THAT?
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SURE. IF YOU'D LIKE.
A IT SAYS, "GARMENTS BEARING WET OR MOIST BLOODSTAINS
MUST NEVER BE SEALED IN AIR-TIGHT CONTAINERS SUCH AS PLASTIC
BAGS."
WELL, A SWATCH IS CLOTH AND THAT'S SYNONYMOUS WITH A
GARMENT --
Q RIGHT.
A -- AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN BOLDED HERE.
Q YES. BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GARMENTS IN THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH, RIGHT, THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU READ, AND THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT BLOODSTAINS IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT I READ FROM;
ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GARMENTS, BUT THAT'S -- WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CLOTH, AND A GARMENT AND A PIECE OF CLOTH TO ME IS
SYNONYMOUS. A PIECE OF SWATCH IS A LITTLE TINY PIECE OF A
GARMENT IN EFFECT.
AND THEN TO GO ON FURTHER, IF YOU HAVE SOME UNTRAINED
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS AT A CRIME SCENE AND THEY HAVE A BLOOD
SAMPLE AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT, IT IS VERY LIKELY
THAT WHY THIS AUTHOR OR THESE AUTHORS ARE SAYING THIS IS THAT IF
THE BLOOD IS MOIST LIKE A --
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO QUESTION PENDING AT
THIS POINT.
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU -- HE ASKED IF HE COULD READ
THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH. HE'S DONE THAT.
ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DOES THE PARAGRAPH STARTING
WITH THE WORD "SOMETIMES" SIMPLY PROVIDE IN THE FIRST LINE THAT,
"SOMETIMES IT MAY BE BETTER TO AIR-DRY SAMPLES, BLOOD SAMPLES,
BEFORE COLLECTING THEM OR PACKAGING THEM FOR TRANSPORTATION TO
THE LABORATORY"?
DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY?
A YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY.
Q AND DID YOU KNOW, SIR -- DID YOU HEAR ANY TESTIMONY
ABOUT HOW LONG LAPD HAS USED THE PRACTICE OF USING PLASTIC
BAGGIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRANSPORTING THE BAGS TO THE CRIME
LAB?
A IF I DID, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW LONG.
Q OKAY.
WELL, IF THEY'VE BEEN USING IT FOR MORE THAN 17
YEARS, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF
EXPERIENCE IN THIS TECHNIQUE?
A THEY'VE DONE IT A LOT OF TIMES.
Q AND DOESN'T IT APPEAR TO YOU THAT WHAT DR. DE FOREST,
GAENNSLEN AND LEE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS THAT
THE DECISION ABOUT HOW TO COLLECT EVIDENCE FROM A CRIME SCENE
SHOULD BE MADE IN CONSULTATION WITH A LABORATORY ANALYST?
A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, BUT I DO NEED TO
QUALIFY THAT.
Q AND WHAT IS YOUR QUALIFICATION?
A WHAT I TRIED TO SAY A MOMENT AGO.
IF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COLLECTING THE BLOOD ARE
UNTRAINED -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FUNDAMENTALLY TEACH
ALL THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE NONSCIENTISTS IN TERMS
OF THEIR BACKGROUND -- IF THEY HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT A QUESTION,
YOU CALL YOUR CRIME LABORATORY SEROLOGIST AND YOU ASK THEM WHAT
TO DO.
AND THIS IS TALKING ABOUT CALLING TO FIND OUT WHAT TO
DO, BECAUSE IF YOU GOT WET BLOOD AT A CRIME SCENE, IT'S STILL WET
WHETHER -- I DON'T MEAN -- I DON'T THINK THIS MEANS, YOU WETTED
IT, YOU MADE IT WET. IT WAS DRY TO BEGIN WITH, YOU MADE IT WET,
YOU'VE MADE IT WET AGAIN, THAT YOU DON'T DRY IT RIGHT AWAY.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHOLE BLOOD, WET BLOOD. WHOLE
BLOOD CONTAINS ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION THAT DRY BLOOD DOESN'T.
BLOOD CELLS, FOR EXAMPLE. BLOOD CELLS ARE STILL INTACT IN WET
BLOOD AND IT MAY BE VERY ADVANTAGEOUS TO BRING THAT BLOOD INTO
THE CRIME LABORATORY IMMEDIATELY. AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES,
WOULD AN ANALYST IN THE LABORATORY SAY, "WELL, PUT IT IN THE BACK
OF YOUR TRUCK FOR EIGHT HOURS AND BRING IT IN THEN"?
Q SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH RESPECT TO WHOLE BLOOD
AT A CRIME -- FIRST OF ALL, DO THEY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHOLE
BLOOD ANYWHERE IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT I READ FROM OR THE PARAGRAPH
ABOVE IT THAT YOU READ FROM?
A IT SAYS, "SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO AIR-DRY BLOOD
SAMPLES." IT DOESN'T SAY -- IT JUST IMPLIES THAT THEY'RE WET
SAMPLES.
Q WELL, WHERE DOES IT SAY "WHOLE BLOOD"?
A IT JUST SAYS "DRY BLOOD SAMPLES."
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WET GARMENTS. THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT -- THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SWATCHES OR -- I DON'T SEE THE
WORD "SWATCH" OR I DON'T SEE "SWAB" HERE. I JUST SEE "WET BLOOD
ON GARMENTS," AND THEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BETTER TO AIR-DRY
IT, SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO AIR-DRY IT, SOMETIMES IT ISN'T.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I CAN INTRODUCE THIS
PAGE INTO EVIDENCE SO THE JURORS CAN LOOK AT IT THEMSELVES, BUT
MAY I MAKE A XEROX COPY LATER ON? IT'S PAGE 245.
THE COURT: NOT AT THIS POINT. THAT'S STILL A HEARSAY
SOURCE.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, SIR, YOU DID SAY THAT YOU
RELIED ON THIS BOOK IN PART IN FORMING OPINIONS ABOUT CRIME SCENE
PROCESSING; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DID YOU READ ANY MATERIALS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY
DR. HENRY LEE ON THE ISSUE OF COLLECTING EVIDENCE FOR DNA TYPING?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q YOU DIDN'T READ A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "GUIDELINES FOR
THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE"? YOU'VE NEVER
SEEN THIS BEFORE BY THE FBI?
A OH, I DIDN'T REALIZE -- I BELIEVE I READ THAT. I
DIDN'T REALIZE THAT DR. LEE WAS THE AUTHOR OF THAT.
Q OKAY.
A I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT THOUGH TO VERIFY THAT I READ
THAT.
Q OKAY.
I'LL LET YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION
AS TO WHETHER YOU READ THIS?
A I CAN'T TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT THAT. I'D HAVE TO --
Q OKAY.
A WAS THERE A COVER WITH A PUBLICATION DATE ON THIS?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, I'M SORRY. DID YOU SAY THAT
YOU RECOGNIZED THIS OR NOT?
A I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE READ THIS, BUT WHAT I ASKED
YOU, WAS THERE A PUBLICATION DATE? I DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T
BELIEVE I HAVE READ THAT.
Q SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH RESPECT TO WHOLE BLOOD
SAMPLES AT A CRIME SCENE, THAT A CLEAN COTTON CLOTH GAUZE OR
COTTON SWAB COULD BE USED TO SOAK UP THE LIQUID IF OTHER
EQUIPMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE; AND IF THIS METHOD IS USED AND A
SIGNIFICANT DELAY WILL OCCUR IN GETTING THE SPECIMENS TO THE
LABORATORY, THE SAMPLES SHOULD BE AIR-DRIED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING
TO THE LABORATORY?
A YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
Q ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY RESEARCH IN THE SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A SIGNIFICANT DELAY WITH
RESPECT TO BLOOD SAMPLES?
A ANY LITERATURE?
Q YES.
A NO.
Q NOW, WHEN ONE IS COLLECTING A BLOODSTAIN AT A CRIME
SCENE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE
ENTIRE STAIN?
A YOU KNOW, STAIN, FOR INSTANCE, UNDERNEATH A BODY CAN
BE HUGE, AND SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. IF -- HAVING BEEN INVOLVED
IN THE LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SOME SAMPLES IN THE PAST, THE MORE
YOU COLLECT, THE BETTER.
SO EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO COLLECT ALL OF THE
STAIN. IF IT'S -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL DROP, A
SMEAR, SOMETHING SUCH AS THAT, ALL OF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN.
Q SIR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT ONCE AN
ADEQUATE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS HAS BEEN TAKEN, SOME OR ALL, IF
NECESSARY, OF THE SAMPLE CAN THEN BE REMOVED FROM THE SCENE?
A AGAIN, THAT'S NOT QUITE TOTALLY CLEAR, BUT YES. IF
-- IF -- IF AN ADEQUATE SAMPLE -- FOR INSTANCE, IF IT'S A BIG
POOL OF BLOOD, YOU WOULD PROBABLY PIPETTE SOME OF IT UP. IF IT'S
AN INDIVIDUAL DROP, ALL OF IT SHOULD BE KEPT -- IT SHOULD BE
PHOTOGRAPHED FIRST AND THEN IT SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE SCENE.
Q SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SENTENCE THAT I JUST STATED
TO YOU IS NOT REALLY CLEAR AS TO WHAT EXACTLY IT MEANS?
A IT'S CLEAR, BUT IT'S NOT COMPLETE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, SIR, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE CHAPTER
THAT WAS IN THE BOOK THAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN ENTITLED PRINCIPLES
OF INVESTIGATION?
A COULD BE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I WROTE. THAT WAS
1979.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAYBE I CAN APPROACH.
THE COURT: YOU WANT TO SHOW THAT TO MR. BLASIER FIRST?
MR. GOLDMAN, WOULD YOU SHOW THAT TO MR. BLASIER,
PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: PROCEED.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: NOW THAT I SEE THIS, I THINK THIS IS GREAT.
NO. THIS IS CORRECT. THIS IS DESCRIBING A
PARTICULAR SITUATION AND IT'S COMPLETE FOR THAT PARTICULAR
SITUATION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT IS THE SITUATION THAT IT
IS DESCRIBING?
A WHERE THERE IS A SAMPLE OF BLOOD SUCH AS A BLOOD
DROP, AND I'M SAYING, "ONCE AN ADEQUATE SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS
HAVE BEEN TAKEN, SOME," AND THEN PARENTHETICALLY, "OR ALL IF
NECESSARY," MEANING, IF IT'S A SMALL SAMPLE, "OF THE SAMPLE CAN
THEN BE REMOVED FROM THE SCENE OR" --
LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE IT SAYS.
WANT ME TO READ THE REST OF THIS?
Q WELL, DOES THE REST OF IT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW MUCH OF
THE BLOODSTAIN YOU NEED TO COLLECT? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN
THERE AS TO THAT?
A YES. YES.
Q OKAY.
THEN READ IT.
A "HOW THE INVESTIGATOR CHOOSE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
REMOVAL WILL DEPEND ON HOW MUCH MATERIAL IS PRESENT IN THE
SAMPLE, HOW OLD THE SAMPLE IS, IF KNOWN, WHERE THE SAMPLE IS
LOCATED AND WHAT IT HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO SO FAR IF KNOWN."
Q OKAY.
SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH RESPECT TO A SINGLE DOT
OF BLOOD OR DROP OF BLOOD, THERE IS NO RULE AS TO EXACTLY HOW
MUCH YOU NEED TO REMOVE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WOULD I AGREE THAT THERE IS NO EXACT RULE?
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO
REMOVE THE WHOLE THING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A FOR A SINGLE DOT?
Q YES.
A I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO REMOVE ALL OF IT UNTIL YOU ARE
SATISFIED YOU'VE GOT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN GET.
Q BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR BOOK, IS IT?
A WELL, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO A TINY LITTLE DOT.
THIS COULD BE A HUGE BUNCH OF BLOOD IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THE SIZE.
I BELIEVE IT'S CLEAR, AS I SAID BEFORE, AND KNOWING
THAT I WROTE IT, THAT IT IS CLEAR WHAT IS SAID THERE. BUT WHAT I
SAID WAS THAT IT IS INCOMPLETE THE WAY YOU READ IT BECAUSE I
DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE BLOODSTAIN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Q BUT THE SIZE BLOODSTAIN THAT IS REFERENCED IN YOUR
BOOK OR IN YOUR CHAPTER RATHER IS A DROP OF BLOOD. ISN'T THAT
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
A AGAIN, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU JUST LOOKED AT IT?
A I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT A DROP. I JUST SAID -- I
BELIEVE IT SAID A BLOOD -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT SAID ANYMORE. I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT SAID A BLOODSTAIN OR A BLOOD SAMPLE.
Q OKAY.
I THINK IT'S IN THE RECORD. SO LET'S GO ON.
A BUT THE POINT IS --
MR. GOLDBERG: THERE'S NO QUESTION PENDING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN
HIS ANSWER.
THE COURT: NO. THE QUESTION WAS, DID HE RECOLLECT THAT,
WAS THAT IN HIS WRITING.
LET'S PROCEED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH
RESPECT TO CRIME SCENE DOCUMENTATION, THAT THE PURPOSES OF GOOD
CRIME SCENE DOCUMENTATION IS SIMPLY TO BE ABLE TO PLACE THE ITEMS
OF EVIDENCE IN EFFECT BACK IN THE CRIME SCENE TO KNOW EXACTLY
WHERE THEY CAME FROM?
A THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE REASONS.
Q WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S REALLY THE KEY GOAL?
A NO. IT'S ONE OF THE KEY GOALS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WHAT OTHER GOAL IS THERE?
A TO -- TO BEGIN THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION, TO BEGIN THE
HISTORY OF THAT SAMPLE, ESTABLISHING THAT THIS IS THE SAME SAMPLE
THAT WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE AND I'M HOLDING IT UP HERE IN MY
HANDS RIGHT NOW IN A COURT OF LAW.
Q NOW, IS THERE ANY ACCEPTED PRACTICE THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, VIDEOTAPING THE CRIME SCENE IS
NECESSARY?
A NO.
Q IN FACT, WOULD YOU SAY THAT AS OF TODAY, VIDEOTAPE IS
NOT A STANDARD PRACTICE AT CRIME SCENES?
A IT -- IT IS REGIONAL, DEPARTMENTAL CHOICE. IT'S NOT
-- IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
Q SOME CRIME LABS ARE USING IT IN SOME JURISDICTIONS
AND SOME AREN'T; IS THAT CORRECT?
A SOME -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S CRIME
LABS. I THINK IT'S THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE USING IT.
Q OKAY.
AND THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN A FORENSIC SCIENCE
LITERATURE ANYWHERE THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST, TO BE COMPETENT,
USE VIDEOTAPE AT A CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT ANYWAY. PUT
IT THAT WAY.
Q NOW, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF TRACE
EVIDENCE, DO YOU -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH LOCARD'S EXCHANGE
PRINCIPLE?
A YES.
Q AND IS THAT THAT WHEN THERE IS CONTACT BETWEEN TWO OR
MORE SURFACES, THERE WILL BE A MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF MATTER ACROSS
THAT CONTACT BOUNDARY AND THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, TRANSFER OF
MATERIALS CAN RESULT WITHOUT CONTACT; HOWEVER, THAT'S RARE?
DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE STATEMENT OF
THE PRINCIPLE?
A THE -- I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING BUT ONE WORD THAT YOU
SAID.
Q WHICH WOULD BE WHAT?
A THAT YOU SAID "THERE WILL BE TRANSFER." I THINK THERE
MAY BE TRANSFER.
Q OKAY.
OR THERE MAY BE TRANSFER THAT'S BEYOND OUR LEVEL OF
DETECTABILITY. THAT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY; IS THAT TRUE?
A THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
Q BUT, SIR, WOULD YOU SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE BLANKET,
THE MOST LIKELY TRANSFER WOULD OCCUR IF THE BLANKET WERE ON TOP
OF NICOLE BROWN, BETWEEN THE BLANKET AND NICOLE BROWN?
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S AN INTELLIGIBLE
QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE BLANKET AND NICOLE BROWN,
BETWEEN MEANS -- YOU MEAN FROM ONE DIRECTION TO THE OTHER?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE WOULD BE AN EXCHANGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN
EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE BLANKET AND ANYTHING AT THE CRIME SCENE, IT
WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO BE NICOLE BROWN'S SINCE IT CAME IN DIRECT
CONTACT WITH HER; IS THAT TRUE?
A I -- I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I THINK FOR THAT
LIMITED PART OF THE SCENARIO, WHERE THE BLANKET IS NOW ON TOP OF
HER, YES. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE PEOPLE --
WHAT THE PEOPLE DID WITH THIS BLANKET WHEN THEY BROUGHT IT OUT,
WHETHER THEY -- WHETHER THEY OPENED IT UP LIKE A -- LIKE YOU
WOULD DO A SHEET OR YOUR OWN BLANKET WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING IT ON
THE BED. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT.
AND SO IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CARE THEY USED.
ASSUMING THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE BLANKET IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THAT IF THEY OPEN IT UP AND FLUFFED IT AROUND OR STRAIGHTENED IT
OUT, SOMEBODY -- IT'S GOT TO BE, I WOULD IMAGINE AT LEAST TWO
PEOPLE OR FOUR TO GET -- TO DO THIS. SO THEY -- I CAN'T ANSWER
THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
Q WELL, WOULD YOU SAY, BASED ON THE EXTENT OF YOUR
KNOWLEDGE, THAT THE MOST LIKELY TRANSFER WOULD PROBABLY BE
BETWEEN NICOLE BROWN AND THE BLANKET?
A ONCE IT'S IN CONTACT WITH HER, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WERE NO HAIR AND TRACE
ITEMS OR ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER THERE WERE ANY HAIR AND TRACE
ITEMS FOUND ON NICOLE BROWN OF SOME PROBATIVE VALUE IN THIS CASE?
A I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION.
Q NOW, YOU SAID THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT
BRINGING THE GLOVE INTO THE CRIME SCENE COULD RESULT IN SOME KIND
OF AN EXCHANGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DIDN'T SAY THAT IN A SENSE -- I POSSIBLY SAID
"COULD." WHAT I SAID, IT'S A BAD PRACTICE AND THAT IT OPENED UP
THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENING.
Q IF THE GLOVE WAS NEVER TAKEN OUT OF THE BAG, WOULD
YOU SAY THAT THAT POSSIBILITY IS SO REMOTE THAT IT'S NOT EVEN
WORTH DISCUSSING?
A IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION ABOUT A
BAD PRACTICE. BUT IF THE BAG IS OPEN AND PEOPLE ARE LOOKING IN
IT OR PUTTING THEIR HAND IN IT, THAT CHANGES IT. IF THE BAG IS
SIMPLY OPENED, THE CHANCES OF SOMETHING JUMPING INTO THAT IS
OBVIOUSLY REMOTE.
Q FROM THE CRIME SCENE?
A FROM ANYTHING.
Q AND THE CHANCES OF SOMETHING JUMPING OUT OF THE BAG
INTO THE CRIME SCENE AGAIN WOULD BE VERY REMOTE, WOULDN'T IT?
A PROBABLY MORE REMOTE.
Q NOW, SIR, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS A GOOD FORENSIC
PRACTICE TO WAIT UNTIL DAYLIGHT TO BEGIN A CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION?
A NOT TO BEGIN IT. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY GOOD PRACTICE TO
CONTINUE IT INTO THE DAYTIME OR TO RETURN -- YOU KNOW, KEEP THE
CRIME SCENE PROTECTED AND RETURN TO THE DAYTIME.
Q OKAY.
THE BARRY FISHER BOOK IS ONE OF THE BOOKS THAT YOU
CONSIDERED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IN PARTS OF IT, YES, BUT I RESPECT BARRY FISHER.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS FOR A MOMENT?
THE COURT: YEAH. YOU WANT TO SHOW MR. BLASIER FIRST WHAT
SOURCE YOU HAVE THERE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I APPROACH?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, IS IT -- DID MR. FISHER IN HIS
BOOK SAY THAT, "UNLESS IT IS UNAVOIDABLY NECESSARY," AND IN
BOLDEN, "DO NOT EXAMINE A CRIME SCENE OUTDOORS UNTIL GOOD
DAYLIGHT PREVAILS"? IS THAT WHAT HE SAID?
A THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS, RIGHT.
Q SO YOU DISAGREE WITH BARRY FISHER?
A NO.
Q NOW, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO A SUMMONSING THE CORONER,
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WHEN THE CORONER IS SUMMONSED IS AN ISSUE
THAT IS SUBJECT TO LOCAL CUSTOM; IN OTHER WORDS, IT DIFFERS FROM
ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER?
A I SUPPOSE THAT'S OBVIOUS. CUSTOMS VARY.
Q DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT WHETHER THE
MEDICAL EXAMINER OR CORONER SHOULD BE CONTACTED AS SOON AS THE
INVESTIGATION BEGINS AS A MATTER OF LOCAL CUSTOM, THAT MANY
AGENCIES WAIT FIRST FOR THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS TO ARRIVE AND
BEGIN THEIR INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION OF THE CORONER'S
OFFICE?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A DO I AGREE THAT THAT'S A PRACTICE?
Q YES.
A IT IS A PRACTICE, YES.
Q AND DO YOU AGREE THAT -- OR IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE
FORENSIC PRACTICE, IF YOU KNOW, INSOFAR AS BARRY FISHER IS
CONCERNED?
A HERE IN L.A. COUNTY?
Q YES.
A THAT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER.
IF THAT'S THEIR PRACTICE HERE IN L.A. COUNTY, THEN
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, AND I AGREE WITH HIM SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT
THEY DO HERE IN L.A. COUNTY. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT.
Q WELL, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT THAT ONE SHOULD
LET A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE BODY WAIT UNTIL THE BASIC
EXAMINATION OF THE SCENE HAS BEEN COMPLETED?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A YES.
Q AND SO, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE CRIME
SCENE HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THEN THE CORONER IS SIMPLY GOING TO
HAVE TO STAND AROUND WAITING FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A NOT NECESSARILY. IF THEY MAKE THEIR PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION, WHICH THEY SHOULD DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND THEN
HAVE OTHER THINGS THEY CAN DO RATHER THAN WAIT FOR FIVE OR SIX OR
10 HOURS, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES, AND THEN RETURN AND DO THEIR
DETAIL, AS THAT REFERS TO, DETAILED INVESTIGATION.
Q WELL, AS SOON AS THEY ENTER THE CRIME SCENE, DIDN'T
YOU SAY THERE WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF ITEMS BEING DISTURBED?
A THAT'S TRUE. BUT AS -- AS THE FIRST OFFICER AND THE
FIRST INVESTIGATOR AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, THEY HAVE TO ENTER
THE CRIME SCENE, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE TRAINED HOW TO ENTER THE
CRIME SCENE TO DO THE LEAST POSSIBLE DAMAGE.
Q BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WITHIN THE
FORENSIC COMMUNITY THAT BELIEVE THAT THE CORONER SHOULD BE KEPT
OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE UNTIL THE SCENE IS PROCESSED?
A DO I BELIEVE THAT? YES, I DO.
Q OKAY.
AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO
CALL THE CORONER LATER ON IN ORDER NOT TO HAVE THEM WAITING FOR
AN EXTENDED PERIOD?
A I DON'T AGREE WITH THE TERM "REASONABLE," BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DO YOU AGREE THAT THE FIRST OFFICER AT THE CRIME
SCENE AFTER HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT THE -- THAT A DEATH HAS
OCCURRED AND MAKING A CURSORY INSPECTION, SHOULD NOTIFY HIS
SUPERIORS AND THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE THAT A HOMICIDE HAS
OCCURRED?
A YES.
Q SIR, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS ADVISED THAT THE
TELEPHONE BE USED RATHER THAN POLICE RADIO TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, AS
IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR THE PRESS AND OTHER NEWS SOURCES TO
MONITOR POLICE RADIO FREQUENCIES?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A YOU SAID "THE TELEPHONE." I AGREE "A TELEPHONE."
Q WELL, YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT MR. FISHER HAS
TO SAY ON THIS?
A NO. I AGREE WITH THAT. YOU SAID "THE TELEPHONE,"
WHICH IS VAGUE TO ME.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?
THE COURT: LET'S NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THAT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
AND DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE AS TO WHY
THE OFFICER DISCOVERING THE BODY DECIDED TO WAIT -- EXCUSE ME --
DECIDED TO USE THE TELEPHONE AS TO -- AS OPPOSED TO THE RADIO?
A I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY THAT -- THAT ANSWER,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.
Q AND, SIR, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO
THE TELEPHONE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT OUTGOING CALLS WOULD
DESTROY ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THAT TELEPHONE AS TO THE
MOST RECENT CALL OR INCOMING CALLS?
A THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PHONE I DON'T KNOW EITHER.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE EYEGLASS ENVELOPE AND THE
OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE IN THE THRESHOLD AREA BETWEEN THE WALKWAY
AND WHAT WE'VE REFERRED TO AS THE CAGED-OFF AREA -- YOU KNOW WHAT
I'M TALKING ABOUT?
A I THINK SO.
Q WITH RESPECT TO THE EYEGLASS ENVELOPE, WOULD ONE
CONCERN BE, IF IT WERE IN FACT NOT MOVED PRIOR TO WHEN THE BODIES
WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE, THAT ANY BLOOD PATTERN ON THE
EYEGLASS ENVELOPE COULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED?
A I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE CHANGED IF THEY MOVED THE
BODY OUT WHILE IT'S STILL THERE.
Q AND, THEREFORE, ANY RECONSTRUCTION THAT COULD BE DONE
ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVELOPE ITSELF WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE VERY --
WOULD BE LESS MEANINGFUL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME MORE INTERPRETATION.
Q OKAY.
AND WOULD YOU ALSO SAY THAT IF THERE WERE IMPRESSION
EVIDENCE ON THAT ENVELOPE AND THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE AT THE
CRIME SCENE THAT YOU HAD IMPRESSION EVIDENCE, THAT THAT
IMPRESSION EVIDENCE MIGHT BE LESS PROBATIVE AS A RESULT OF THE
ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED?
A LESS PROBATIVE?
Q YES.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WOULD IT BE YOUR ESTIMATION THAT
THAT IMPRESSION EVIDENCE, IF THAT WERE THE ONLY IMPRESSION
EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD, WOULD BE LESS USABLE FOR FORENSIC PURPOSES
FOR SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MARKS. I
MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE -- I'VE SEEN
PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THE -- WHILE -- WHILE THE REMAINS OF THE
VICTIMS WERE STILL THERE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
A AND ANY CHANGE WOULD -- IF THERE WAS ANY CHANGE DUE
TO MOVING THE BODIES, COULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDMAN, I NEED TO TAKE A -- I'VE HAD A REQUEST
HERE FOR A BRIEF COMFORT BREAK.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TAKE A 10-MINUTE COMFORT
BREAK. REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
MR. RAGLE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. COME BACK IN 10
MINUTES.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT.
ARE WE READY?
MS. CLARK: CAN WE JUST --
MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH. THERE WAS ONE MATTER THAT WE WANTED
TO ADDRESS THE COURT ABOUT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG: CAN WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: THE JURY IS NOT HERE.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I JUST -- IT WAS ABOUT MR. RAGLE'S
TESTIMONY AND I -- THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
OKAY. MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS
OWN CRIME SCENE PRACTICES, AND SINCE THE ONLY CRIME SCENE OR
ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROXIMATING A CRIME SCENE HE HAS INVESTIGATED
IN THE LAST 19 YEARS WAS THE BRONCO, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW WHAT
PRACTICES HE USED IN INVESTIGATING IT.
THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, DON'T YOU THINK YOU HAVE ALREADY
MADE THE POINT, THE FACT THAT HE HASN'T BEEN TO A CRIME SCENE FOR
ALMOST TWENTY YEARS?
MR. GOLDBERG: I WANT TO SHOW THAT HE IS NOT WEARING A
HAIRNET OR A LAB COAT OR HE'S NOT WEARING GLOVES AND HIS HANDS
ARE IMMEDIATELY PROXIMATE TO BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
I MEAN THIS MAN IS --
THE COURT: WHEN WERE THESE TAKEN?
MR. GOLDBERG: AUGUST 26TH.
MR. BLASIER: I DIDN'T ELICIT ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT GLOVES OR
HAIRNETS.
HE IS WORKING FOR THE DEFENSE. HE WASN'T PROCESSING
THIS CRIME SCENE FOR THE PROSECUTION. THIS IS COMPLETELY
IRRELEVANT.
AND I DIDN'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AND IT IS
BEYOND THE SCOPE AND IT IS IMPROPER.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO. 1, HIS COMPETENCE AS A CRIMINALIST IS AT
ISSUE.
AND NO. 2, YOUR HONOR, HE TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS
EXAMINATION OF THIS BRONCO AND HIS OPINIONS ABOUT THE BRONCO, AND
THIS -- THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN AT THE VERY EXAMINATION IN
THE BRONCO THAT HE CONDUCTED AT WHICH THESE KIND OF OPINIONS WERE
ARRIVED AT.
THE COURT: I SEE THE DOOR IS ON, TOO, AT THE TIME, TOO.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, ON THE 26TH IT IS, BUT IT ISN'T ON
MARCH THE 4TH WHEN HE DID HIS LITTLE THING WITH WHERE THE BLOOD
DROPS WERE.
MR. BLASIER: HE ONLY WENT THERE TO LOOK AT IT. THAT IS
WHAT HE TESTIFIED ABOUT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED IN AUGUST. I HAVEN'T GONE INTO THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS NOT TO IMPEACH HIM ON THE DOOR ISSUE,
YOUR HONOR.
MR. BLASIER: THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS BEYOND THE
SCOPE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. BLASIER: DO WE GO TO 5:00 TODAY, JUDGE?
THE COURT: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED
BY OUR JURY PANEL.
MR. LARRY RAGLE IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND
UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG.
AND MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. RAGLE, WITH RESPECT TO THE
INTERIOR OF THE CONDOMINIUM AT BUNDY, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE
TESTIMONY THAT INSIDE THE CONDOMINIUM THERE WAS NO RANSACKING,
THERE WERE NO FOOTPRINTS THAT WERE FOUND, SHOEPRINTS, NO BLOOD,
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY STRUGGLE, NO EVIDENCE OF A BREAK-IN, AND THAT
THERE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE CHECKED WITH THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST
AND NO BLOOD WAS DISCOVERED?
WERE YOU AWARE OF ALL THOSE THINGS?
A I WAS AWARE OF EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE LAST THING YOU
MENTIONED.
Q WELL, DID YOU TALK TO DENNIS FUNG AND ANDREA MAZZOLA
IN THIS CASE BEFORE GETTING UP TO THE STAND TO CRITICIZE THE
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
A DID I TALK TO THEM?
Q YES.
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED, SIR, THAT THERE WAS A
POSSIBILITY THAT THE BLOOD VIAL PLACED IN AN EVIDENCE ENVELOPE IN
A TRASH BAG COULD HAVE BROKEN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT IS IN DANGER, YES.
Q IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE BLOOD VIAL
ACTUALLY DID BREAK?
A NO.
Q IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT CRACKED?
A NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Q SO WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE IS
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: THAT IS A LEGAL CONCLUSION, COUNSEL.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, ARE YOU AWARE, SIR, THAT WITH
RESPECT TO THE ITEMS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT WERE TAKEN BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS, IF YOU WILL,
DOCUMENTING WHERE THE OBJECTS WERE ORIGINALLY AND THEN WHERE THEY
WERE MOVED TO; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I HAVE SEEN TWO SETS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, YES.
Q AND IN FACT THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU KNOW THAT
OBJECTS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION WERE IN FACT MOVED IS BECAUSE OF
THE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT TRUE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, MR. RAGLE, DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE NO HARD
AND FAST RULES FOR SUCCESSFUL CRIME SCENE PROCESSING?
A I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, NO.
Q YOU DON'T?
SO IF PROFESSOR DE FOREST, LEE AND GAENSSLEN SAID
THAT, THAT THERE ARE NO HARD AND FAST RULES FOR SUCCESSFUL CRIME
SCENE PROCESSING, YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND DON'T YOU THINK THAT THEY ALL HAVE A LITTLE BIT
MORE EXPERIENCE AS CRIMINALISTS THAN YOU DO?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU THINK THAT DR. HENRY LEE HAS
MORE EXPERIENCE AS A CRIMINALIST THAN YOURSELF?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE; NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I -- I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, I DON'T
REALLY KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW -- YOU KNOW, WHAT HE DOES.
HE CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAYS.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND SIR, IS YOUR HIGHEST DEGREE IN
CRIMINALISTICS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DO YOU THINK THAT DR. DE FOREST HAS MORE
EXPERIENCE IN CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION THAN YOURSELF?
A I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS EXPERIENCE IS. HE IS, I
BELIEVE, A --
Q YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM?
A OH, I KNOW HIM. HE WENT TO THE SAME UNIVERSITY. I
JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS EXPERIENCE IS.
Q AND SIR, HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN A BOOK THAT IS A
LEADING TEXTBOOK IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC SCIENCE?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q OKAY.
AND THE CHAPTER THAT YOU WROTE IS NOT CONTAINED IN A
BOOK THAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A LEADING TEXTBOOK; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A I DON'T CONSIDER IT A LEADING TEXTBOOK.
Q IN FACT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS THAT BOOK NOT EVEN
CONTAINED IN THE LIBRARY AT THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY LIBRARY?
A I CAN'T FIND IT.
Q NOW, UMM --
A IT WAS.
Q THEY HAVEN'T REPLACED IT?
A IT IS OUT OF PRINT.
Q NOW, SIR, DO YOU ALSO AGREE, WITH RESPECT TO THE
ISSUE OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING, THAT:
"OF COURSE PERFECTION IN THIS OR ANY OTHER HUMAN
ENDEAVOR IS NEVER ACHIEVED, IT IS PROBABLE THAT NO CRIME SCENE
HAS EVER BEEN PROCESSED IN SUCH A WAY THAT HINDSIGHT WOULD NOT
ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO CRITICIZE THE WORK AT A HEAR DATE"?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A I'M SURE THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO THAT.
Q OKAY.
AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO --
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND SIR, IS IT A CORRECT STATEMENT
OF THE RECORD AND YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE THAT IT HAS BEEN 19
YEARS SINCE YOU'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE FIELD AS A CRIMINALIST
AND PROCESSED A CRIME SCENE?
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. THANK YOU.
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q MR. RAGLE, MR. GOLDBERG ASKED YOU SEVERAL QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAD PROCESSED ANY CRIME SCENE SINCE 1989.
DID YOU RETIRE IN 1989?
A YES, I DID RETIRE IN 1989.
Q WOULD THERE BE ANY REASON WHY YOU WOULD BE PROCESSING
CRIME SCENES AFTER YOU RETIRED FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT?
A NOT IF I CAN HELP IT.
Q NOW, HE ALSO ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY
PROCESSED ANY CRIME SCENES FROM 1976 TO 1989.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
WERE YOU IN CHARGE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE PROCESSING
CRIME SCENES DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
A YES, I WAS.
Q WERE YOU, AS ONE OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, INVOLVED
IN REVIEWING THEIR WORK IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES?
A IN CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES, CASES WERE REVIEWED, YES.
Q AND IN THE CASES THAT WERE REVIEWED CAN YOU GIVE ME A
ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY CRIME SCENE PROCESSING CASES YOU HAVE
REVIEWED BETWEEN 1976 AND 1989?
A I REALLY CAN'T GIVE YOU A NUMBER. IN -- THERE ARE
TWO TYPES OF REVIEWS THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN.
ONE WOULD BE PERIODIC REVIEW OF A HOMICIDE WHERE
EVERYBODY IN THE LABORATORY PARTICIPATED AND IT WAS MORE OF A
CRITIQUE AND LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
ON A DAILY BASIS I MET WITH THE CHIEF DEPUTY CORONER
AND THE CHIEF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST, AND ON OCCASION THE CHIEF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, AND REVIEWED CASES FOR THEIR COMPLETENESS
IN TERMS OF THE ISSUING OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE.
SO THAT INCLUDED SCENES THAT -- CRIMES THAT INCLUDED
NATURAL DEATHS, THAT INCLUDED OTHER TYPES OF DEATHS, SUICIDES AND
ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, AND THAT HAPPENED ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO EIGHT
TIMES -- EIGHT CASES A DAY FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT I WAS THE
DIRECTOR, SO I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CALCULATOR TO FIGURE OUT HOW
MANY CASES THAT INVOLVED.
Q ARE WE TALKING THOUSANDS OF CASES?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q OR AT LEAST HUNDREDS?
A HUNDREDS.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT CERTAIN TEXTBOOKS AND YOU
MENTIONED REFERENCES TO SEVERAL JOURNALS. I THINK YOU MENTIONED
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCE AND THE FORENSIC
SOCIETY JOURNAL FROM ENGLAND.
DO YOU SUBSCRIBE AND KEEP UP WITH THOSE JOURNALS?
A THE JOURNAL THAT IS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF FORENSIC SCIENCES, YES, I SUBSCRIBE TO THAT, AND AS PART OF
THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS YOU
RECEIVE THE BRITISH JOURNAL.
Q AND DO THOSE JOURNALS CONTAIN ARTICLES ABOUT NEW
TECHNIQUES AND STATE OF THE ART TECHNIQUES USED IN CRIME SCENE
PROCESSING?
A IN PART, YES.
Q DO TEXTBOOKS TYPICALLY KEEP UP-TO-DATE ON STATE OF
THE ART OR NEW TECHNIQUES USED IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES?
A TEXTBOOKS ARE REVISED PERIODICALLY AND SO, YOU KNOW,
THE LATEST EDITION WOULD HAVE TECHNIQUES THAT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED
SINCE THE PREVIOUS EDITION, SO THEY ARE UPDATED, YES.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED --
A THEY ARE NOT --
Q I'M SORRY.
A THEY ARE NOT AS CURRENT AS THE A JOURNAL.
Q YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WALKING INTO A
CRIME SCENE AND NOT WEARING GLOVES IF YOU WERE NOT GETTING CLOSE
TO THE EVIDENCE.
IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU'VE
LOOKED AT IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE SHOULD BE WALKING
IN THE CRIME SCENE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU THINK OF ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR
FORENSIC PURPOSE SERVED BY A POLICE OFFICER GOING INTO THE CRIME
SCENE TO HAVE HIS PICTURE TAKEN POINTING OUT EXHIBITS?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT GLOVES AND THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE FOR WEARING PROTECTIVE GEAR
SUCH AS GLOVES, HATS AND PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR, AND I BELIEVE YOU
TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT ORIGINALLY THAT WAS BECAUSE
TO PREVENT COMMUNICATIVE DISEASES BEING PICKED UP AT A CRIME
SCENE, CORRECT?
ARE THERE NEW PURPOSES THAT NOW EXIST FOR WEARING
THIS KIND OF PROTECTION?
A I MENTIONED THE EVOLUTION OF THAT, AND YES, THERE ARE
MORE CONCERNS NOW WITH THE SAMPLES THAT ARE BEING HANDLED FOR
CERTAIN TYPES OF TESTS, WHERE TRACE AMOUNTS OF MATERIALS ARE
GOING TO BE DETECTED.
Q AND DOES THAT RELATE TO PCR TESTING WHERE SMALL
MATERIALS ARE AMPLIFIED?
A YES.
Q DO YOU KNOW OF ANY REASON WHY YOU COULD NOT REMOVE A
BLOODSTAIN FROM A TILE SURFACE BY SCRAPING IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO WHAT KIND OF TILE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH -- HAVE
YOU TRIED TO REMOVE BLOOD STAINS FROM TILE SURFACES?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TILE
INVOLVED HERE. YOU HAVE GLAZED TILE, YOU HAVE MEXICAN PAVER TILE
THAT ARE POROUS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF SURFACES, SO YOUR QUESTION IS
AMBIGUOUS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: HAVE YOU -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH
REMOVING BLOODSTAINS FROM TILE SURFACES WITH POROUS TYPES OF
TILE?
A I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF THAT TYPE
OF CRIME SCENE THAT I PERSONALLY WAS AT.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WAITING
UNTIL DAYLIGHT HOURS TO PROCESS A CRIME SCENE.
DID YOU INDICATE IN YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT YOU
SHOULD -- THAT A CRIME SCENE SHOULD BE PROCESSED DURING THE
NIGHTTIME, ENTIRELY PROCESSED?
A NOT ENTIRELY. WHAT I INDICATED IS THAT THERE ARE A
LOT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE BECAUSE IT IS DARK, IT IS
ADVANTAGEOUS TO DO CERTAIN TYPES OF THINGS IN THE DARK.
Q IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC
REASON TO NOT CALL A CRIMINALIST WHEN YOU HAVE A CRIME SCENE THAT
IS AT NIGHTTIME?
A NO.
Q IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIVE OR FORENSIC
PURPOSE FOR -- WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH SMALL BLOODSTAINS, TO
NOT REMOVE THE ENTIRE STAIN?
A THERE IS -- THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO REMOVE THE
ENTIRE STAIN, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRACTICE
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY TO NOT CALL THE CORONER FOR WHATEVER PERIOD
OF TIME.
DO YOU AGREE THAT WITH THAT -- LET ME REPHRASE THAT.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A
PROPER PRACTICE?
A IN MY OPINION IT IS NOT A PROPER PRACTICE.
Q YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT USE OF THE TELEPHONE.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE, ANY TEXTBOOK, ANY SOURCE, ANY POLICE
SOURCE WHATSOEVER THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A CRIME
SCENE WITH A VICTIM MURDERED OUTSIDE HER FRONT DOOR THAT IT IS
OKAY TO USE HER PHONE TO CALL IN THE STATION?
A I DON'T KNOW OF ANY -- ANYBODY THAT WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT OR OF ANY PRINTED RECOMMENDATION.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED TO REVIEW A PORTION OF DR. LEE'S
BOOK, PAGE 245. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN.
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHOSE BOOK IT
IS.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. BLASIER: MR. DE FOREST, MR. GAENSSLEN AND DR. LEE.
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU PAGE 245 AND ASK YOU
TO LOOK AT THE TOP PART OF THE PAGE PRIOR TO THE PARAGRAPH YOU
WERE ASKED TO READ.
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT IS -- THAT
PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH OR THE FIRST PART OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT WAS
READ TO YOU, WHAT DOES THAT APPLY TO?
A IT APPLIES TO BLOOD THAT IS STILL WET OR CLOTTED AND
IT INDICATES THAT THIS BLOOD IS EASIER TO TYPE THAN DRY BLOOD.
Q DOES THAT REFER TO ANY -- ANY TYPE OF STAINS THAT
HAVE ALREADY DRIED AND THEN THE POLICE MAKE THEM WET?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION AND
SPECULATION. HE CAN READ WHAT IS THERE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MAY I READ?
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER, ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DOES THAT REFER IN
ANY -- ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE OR IN THAT SECTION -- TO STAINS THAT
ARE ALREADY DRY THAT THE POLICE MAKE WET BY VIRTUE OF THE WAY --
THE METHOD THEY USE TO COLLECT THE BLOOD?
A ONE MOMENT?
MS. BLASIER: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO YOU THE
LAST PART OF THAT PARAGRAPH THAT MR. GOLDBERG READ YOU THE FIRST
PART OF AND ASK YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS:
"CAREFUL DOCUMENTATION OF A CRIME SCENE IS
ESSENTIAL BEFORE" --
MR. GOLDBERG: BEYOND THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. GOLDBERG: I DIDN'T GO INTO DOCUMENTATION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: "CAREFUL DOCUMENTATION OF A CRIME
SCENE IS ESSENTIAL BEFORE BEGINNING TO COLLECT EVIDENCE.
WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT SAMPLES CAME FROM WHERE, THE
SEROLOGICAL RESULTS WILL NOT BE OF MUCH HELP IN RECONSTRUCT CAN
THE EVENT. ALL SAMPLES SHOULD BE PLACED IN APPROPRIATE CONTAINERS
AND CAREFULLY LABELED. BLOOD EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE
LABORATORY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER IT IS COLLECTED. THE OLDER
A DRIED STAIN BECOMES, THE FEWER ARE THE INDIVIDUALIZING --
INDIVIDUALIZING CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAN BE TESTED FOR IN THE
SAMPLES, AND THE LESS INFORMATION WILL BE OBTAINED. STORAGE OF
DRY BLOOD SAMPLES AT REFRIGERATOR OR FREEZER TEMPERATURES OFTEN
GREATLY EXTENDS THE PERIOD OF STABILITY (AND THUS TYPABILITY) OF
THE GENETIC MARKER SYSTEMS."
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT THERE ARE TWO SETS
OF PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH REVEAL THAT SOME PIECES OF EVIDENCE, THE
ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE WERE REMOVED AT SOME POINT.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I RECALL THAT.
Q DOES THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO SETS OF PHOTOGRAPHS
ASSIST YOU IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER IN DETERMINING HOW THEY GOT FROM
ONE POSITION TO THE OTHER, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE PICKED UP AND
PLACED IN A NEW POSITION OR WHO DID THAT?
A THE PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT, NO.
Q HAVE ANY MATERIALS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AT ALL
INDICATING THAT ANY EFFORT WAS EVER MADE TO TRY AND MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION?
A I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY DOCUMENTATION AT ALL.
MR. BLASIER: THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME, I DO HAVE ONE MORE
QUESTION IF I MIGHT. JUST ONE.
THE COURT: I ALREADY WROTE "RECROSS" ON MY NOTES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. RAGLE, WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT A
TRAINED CRIMINALIST WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE BLOODSTAINS ON THE
OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO?
MR. GOLDBERG: BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN EXAMINING THE BRONCO ON THE 14TH
WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY BLOODSTAINS ON THE OUTSIDE
OF THE DOOR TOWARD THE BOTTOM?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. BLASIER: THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GOLDBERG:
Q SIR, ARE YOU REPAIRED TO CITE TO THIS JURY ANY
REFERENCE IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCE LITERATURE FOR THE PROPOSITION
THAT ITEMS SHOULD ALWAYS BE AIR DRIED AT THE SCENE WHEN THE CLOTH
SWATCH TECHNIQUE WAS USED TO COLLECT A DRY STAIN?
A AM I PREPARED TO TELL YOU WHERE TO LOOK THIS UP? IS
THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING? A PRINTED REFERENCE?
Q YEAH. DID YOU BRING A CITATION WITH YOU WHERE YOU
CAN SAY THIS PERSON ON THIS DATE AND THIS JOURNAL WROTE THAT WHEN
YOU USE THE CLOTH SWATCH TECHNIQUE YOU MUST ALWAYS AIR DRY AT THE
SCENE?
A I DON'T KNOW OF ANY. WHAT WE JUST READ IN DR. LEE
AND THE OTHER AUTHOR'S BOOKS I THINK SAID THAT, AND I BELIEVE
THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE BOOK YOU READ FROM FROM DOCTOR -- FROM
BARRY FISHER, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS.
Q WELL, CAN YOU POINT OUT FOR US WHERE?
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. YOU GUYS ARE TALKING AT THE SAME
TIME.
LET HIM FINISH HIS ANSWER.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW IF IT USED THE WORD "ALWAYS."
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: IN FACT THEY SAID "SOMETIMES,"
RIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THAT WAS THE ONLY WORD THAT THEY USED WITH RESPECT TO
AIR DRYING, SOMETIMES YOU SHOULD?
A AND I BELIEVE WHEN YOU ASKED ME THAT QUESTION BEFORE,
WHEN YOU SAID "SOMETIMES," I SAID IT DEPENDS ON THE TIMING AND
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, AND I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN,
IS CAN YOU CITE FOR US A SINGLE REFERENCE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS
THAT WHEN YOU USE THE CLOTH SWATCH TECHNIQUE AT A CRIME SCENE TO
COLLECT A DRIED STAIN YOU MUST AIR DRY IT AT THE SCENE?
A NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REFERENCE.
Q AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, ALSO, WITH THE PROPOSITION
THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE FORENSIC SCIENCE LITERATURE AND THE
TEXTBOOKS AS TO HOW A CRIME SCENE SHOULD BE PROCESSED, THAT WE
COULD FIND A VARIETY OF OPINIONS ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES?
A NOT THE BASICS. IN VARIOUS -- I'M SURE VARIOUS
AUTHORS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS WOULD RECOMMEND SOME THINGS, BUT
THE BASIC THINGS THAT I INDICATED WHEN WE BEGAN THIS MORNING, THE
-- I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE BASIC RULES, AND I CALL THOSE RULES,
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FUNCTIONS THAT MUST BE DONE AT A CRIME SCENE
ALWAYS HAVE TO OCCUR.
IF THEY DON'T, YOU HAVE A FAULTY CRIME SCENE.
Q EXACTLY. THOSE FOUR THINGS MUST OCCUR?
A FIVE.
Q I THOUGHT YOU SAID FOUR. RECOGNITION, COLLECTION,
PACKAGING AND THEN WHAT WAS THE FINAL ONE THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED?
A DOCUMENTATION AND PRESERVATION.
Q OKAY.
A PRESERVATION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AS TO THE ITEMS THAT YOU REFERRED, ALTHOUGH WE CAN
FIND REFERENCES TO THOSE FIVE CATEGORIES BEING MUSTS, IN TERMS OF
HOW TO PERFORM EACH ONE OF THOSE FIVE CATEGORIES, CAN WE FIND
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECOGNIZED FORENSIC SCIENTISTS IN THE
LITERATURE?
MR. BLASIER: I OBJECT. THAT IS VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I'M SURE THAT IF YOU LOOKED AT ENOUGH
DIFFERENT BOOKS YOU WOULD FIND SOME VARIATIONS, BUT NOT -- NOT --
THEY ARE ALL FOCUSED TOWARDS THE SAME COMMON GOAL AND THAT IS TO
GET THE MOST INFORMATION FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND TO PRESERVE THE
EVIDENCE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OF COURSE, BUT WE COULD FIND SOME
VARIATION IN TERMS OF HOW BEST TO DOCUMENT THE SCENE, COULDN'T
WE?
A WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHO BROUGHT IT UP, BUT THE
VIDEOTAPING IS AN EXAMPLE.
Q RIGHT.
A SOME -- SOME DEPARTMENTS PREFER TO DO -- TO DO STILL
PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEOTAPING.
Q AND SOME DON'T DO EITHER, RIGHT?
A OH, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT DOESN'T PHOTOGRAPH.
Q AT SMALL CRIME SCENES THERE ARE SOME THAT DON'T TAKE
ANY PHOTOGRAPHS AREN'T THERE?
A IN MALICIOUS MISCHIEF TYPE OF CRIME SCENES.
Q OR EVEN IN SOME LOW GRADE FELONIES; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
THE COURT: NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
Q WELL, SIR, ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT IN THE AREA OF
IDENTIFYING HOW BEST TO IDENTIFY EVIDENCE AT A CRIME SCENE IN
TERMS OF THE TECHNIQUES TO USE, THERE MAY ALSO BE SOME VARIATION
IN THE FORENSIC LITERATURE?
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
Q IN TERMS OF WHAT SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE TO USE IN ORDER
TO FIND EVIDENCE AT A CRIME SCENE, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES IN
THE LITERATURE, AREN'T THERE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECT. THAT IS VAGUE. HE IS TALKING ABOUT
A SPECIFIC PROCESS.
THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE SORT OF GONE AROUND THIS FOR A
WHILE.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO GET INTO,
BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE US TO APPROACH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AT THE SIDE BAR.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT SEEMS THAT COUNSEL HAS
CLEARLY OPENED THE ISSUE OF UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS YOU SHOULD BE
WEARING GLOVES, HAT AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND SAYING THAT NO IT
IS NOT JUST FOR PROTECTING YOURSELF, IT IS ALSO FOR PROTECTING
THE EVIDENCE AND IT HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH PROBATIVE EVIDENCE TO SAY HERE
IS WHAT YOU DO AND PUT HIM ON.
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
HE TESTIFIED TO THAT AND HE WAS LED INTO AN ANSWER
REGARDING PCR TESTING.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?
THE COURT: HE WAS LED INTO AN ANSWER CONCERNING PCR
TESTING AND THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE EVEN MORE NECESSARY THESE DAYS
BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF PCR TESTING IS WHAT HE SAID.
MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH.
THE COURT: MY QUESTION TO YOU IS ON THIS PARTICULAR DATE
IN QUESTION WAS THE CONSOLE STILL IN THE BRONCO AND WAS IT STILL
SUBJECT TO EVIDENCE COLLECTION FOR PCR TESTING?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES. IT WAS. THAT WAS THE DAY, YOUR HONOR,
THAT THE CONSOLE WAS REMOVED FROM THE BRONCO BY MICHELE KESTLER
AND PEOPLE WORKING UNDER HER FOR PURPOSES OF PCR TESTING.
AND IT WAS IN THERE AND IT IS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS VERY
CLEARLY AND HIS HAND IS RIGHT NEAR THAT VERY AREA WHERE 303, 304
AND 305 CAME FROM.
THE COURT: WHAT DOES TO TELL ME? WHAT DOES THAT TELL ME?
MR. GOLDBERG: SORRY, I BROUGHT UP THE WRONG PHOTO HERE.
CAN I --
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: OKAY.
I RECOLLECT THE TWO -- I RECOLLECT THE TWO
PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOW MR. RAGLE LEANING INTO THE BRONCO OR
HOLDING THE RULE FOR A PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMETHING ON THE DRIVER'S
SIDE DOOR PANEL.
MR. GOLDBERG: RIGHT.
THE COURT: INTERIOR.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND IN TERMS OF TIME, THIS WILL TAKE ME
ABOUT A MINUTE.
MR. BLASIER: IT IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE.
MR. GOLDBERG: FOR ME.
MR. BLASIER: HE IS NOT PROCESSING THIS CRIME SCENE.
MR. GOLDBERG: HE IS A CRIMINALIST WHO IS WORKING THERE.
THE COURT: WELL, WHY WAS IT NECESSARY TO ASK THOSE
QUESTIONS? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
MR. BLASIER: ASK WHICH QUESTIONS? I DIDN'T BRING IT UP.
I RESPONDED TO HIM ON CROSS. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GLOVES.
THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS YOU LED HIM INTO AN ANSWER
THAT HAD TO DO WITH SENSITIVITY OF PCR TESTING AND WHY YOU WEAR
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.
MR. BLASIER: BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T LET HIM EXPLAIN THE
GLOVES AND HOW ORIGINALLY IT WAS TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND FROM
DISEASE AND THAT HAS CHANGED, THAT HAS EVOLVED.
BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T LET HIM DO THAT, I DID THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: HE ANSWERED THAT. HE GAVE THAT ANSWER.
MR. BLASIER: AFTER I ASKED HIM.
MR. GOLDBERG: HE GAVE THAT ON CROSS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO THIS.
I WILL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG, WITH ALACRITY.
MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL. I WANT TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S NEXT IN
ORDER WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WITNESS.
THE COURT: 589.
(PEO'S 589 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
MR. GOLDBERG: AND I WROTE 589 ON THE REAR.
MAY I PUT THAT ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR? IT SEEMS TO
BE WASHED OUT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. GOLDBERG: CAN WE GET --
Q SIR, ON AUGUST THE 26TH, WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR
THEM TO FOCUS ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YOU PARTICIPATED WITH THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IN A SEARCH AT THE KEYSTONE TOW
FACILITY THAT INVOLVED THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?
A ON AUGUST 26TH, YES, I DID.
MR. GOLDBERG: CAN'T WE GET IT IN ANY BETTER THAN THAT?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND SIR, IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH CAN YOU
SEE YOURSELF LEANING INTO THE BRONCO?
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION
MAYBE WE COULD JUST PASS THIS AROUND AFTER I FINISH MY QUESTIONS?
THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AS YOU ARE LEANING INTO THE BRONCO,
SIR, IS YOUR HAND IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE REAR OF THE
CONSOLE THAT IS STILL IN THE BRONCO?
A YES, IT IS.
Q ARE YOU AWARE THAT THAT CONSOLE WAS REMOVED FROM THE
BRONCO ON THIS DATE AND THAT IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SUBJECT TO PCR
TESTING?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU WEARING A GLOVE?
A NO, I'M NOT.
Q ARE YOU WEARING ANY LAB COAT?
A NO, THAT IS A SHIRT.
Q ARE YOU WEARING ANY HAIRNET?
A NO, I'M NOT.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.
NOTHING FURTHER.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q MR. RAGLE, WERE YOU PROCESSING THE BRONCO FOR ANY
EVIDENCE YOURSELF THAT DAY?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TOUCH OR GRAB THE CONSOLE IN ANY FASHION?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU BEING CLOSELY WATCHED BY POLICE OFFICERS AS
WELL AS MICHELE KESTLER?
A YES.
Q DURING THE ENTIRE TIME?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. RAGLE, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
TOMORROW MORNING?
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS
FOR THE AFTERNOON AT THIS POINT.
HOWEVER, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP
ONE MATTER.
MR. BANCROFT?
MR. BANCROFT: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THREE TIMES TODAY I NOTICED THE CAMERA MOVING
AND I OBSERVED ON THREE OCCASIONS JURORS LOOKING UP AT THE CAMERA
AS IT WAS MOVING BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF NOISE IT IS MAKING, SO
IT EITHER NEEDS TO BE LUBRICATED AND QUIETED DOWN, BECAUSE IF IT
IS DISTRACTING THE JURORS BY SWINGING BACK AND FORTH, IT IS GOING
TO GO.
MR. BANCROFT: OKAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL?
MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK NOT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED THEN, PLEASE REMEMBER
ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY
OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH
YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU.
WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, MAY WE APPROACH A MINUTE?
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(AT 4:45 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY,
AUGUST 22, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
)
VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995
VOLUME 209
PAGES 42222 THROUGH 42455, INCLUSIVE
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
KENNETH SPAULDING, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
ALSO PRESENT: MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
RON REGWAN, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 209 PAGES 42222 - 42455
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
MONDAY AUGUST 21, 1995 A.M. 42222 209
P.M. 42307 209
-----------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
MOTION RE NIGHTTIME CRIME SCENE VIEW 42222 209
(WITHDRAWN)
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. HODGMAN - H MR. COCHRAN - C MR. DARDEN D
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MS. LEWIS - L MR. BAILEY - B
MS. KAHN - K MS. CHAPMAN - SC MR. GOLDBERG -
GB MR. BLASIER - BB
MR. CLARKE - GC MR. UELMEN - U
MR. HARMON - RH MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. GORDON - G MR. NEUFELD - N
MR. KELBERG - BK
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
RAGLE, JOHN 42258BB 209
LARRY
(RESUMED) 42312BB 42358GB 42433BB 42443GB
(FURTHER) 42453BB
-----------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
RAGLE, JOHN 42258BB 209
LARRY
(RESUMED) 42312BB 42358GB 42433BB 42443GB
(FURTHER) 42453BB
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
589 - PHOTOGRAPH 42451 209
OF JOHN RAGLE AND AN INDIVIDUAL TAKING
PICTURES INSIDE A VEHICLE
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1326-A & 1326-B - 42278 209
SLIDE PRESENTATION ENTITLED "CRIME SCENE
PROCESSING" AND "CHRONOLOGY"
1327 - PHOTOGRAPH 42300 209
OF AN INDIVIDUAL POINTING TO A GLOVE AND KNIT
CAP ON THE GROUND AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE
1328 - PHOTOGRAPH 42300 209
OF A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF A GLOVE ON THE GROUND
WITH THE NO. 102
1329 - PHOTOGRAPH 42337 209
OF A RED SPOT ON THE GROUND WITH THE NO. 112
AT THE CRIME SCENE
1330 - PHOTOGRAPH 42356 209
OF THE SIDE BOARD ON A WHITE VEHICLE WITH
THREE CIRCLES AND TWO ARROWS
