|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 10:04 A.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.) (PAGES 21822 THROUGH 21856, VOLUME 121A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. ANYTHING WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY JEX, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. (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. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY ALL REMAINING MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU PLEASE DRAW THE NUMBER OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR. THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 795, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN SEAT NO. 9. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MORNING SESSION THIS MORNING MRS. ROBERTSON WILL RENUMBER THE SEATS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING. MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK: Q: MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES MANUAL AT SID? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID HE WAS AWARE OF IT; HE HADN'T SEEN IT. YES OR NO, ARE YOU AWARE OF IT? THE WITNESS: I AM AWARE OF A MANUAL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IN EFFECT OR NOT, THOUGH. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: JUST TO BE PRECISE, I THINK I ASKED YOU: "ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FIELD PROCEDURES MANUAL?" AND YOU ANSWERED: "I AM. I KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN. I -- BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT." IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID YESTERDAY? A: I MAY HAVE SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. Q: OKAY. AND, UMM, NOW, ARE YOU TELLING US, SIR, THAT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW THERE IS NO MANUAL IN EFFECT THAT ESTABLISHES PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR YOUR CRIME LABORATORY? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT IS OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IS THERE A MANUAL? THE WITNESS: I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK YOU SAID BEFORE YOU KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN, RIGHT? A: I KNOW A DRAFT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS VOLUME. THE COURT: YOU CAN MARK IT. MR. SCHECK: NEXT IN ORDER. THE CLERK: 1071. (DEFT'S 1071 FOR ID = MANUAL) Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE -- THAT VOLUME, SIR, AND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LEAF THROUGH IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE SEEN ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) YES, I HAVE. Q: SO YOU HAVE SEEN THIS? A: YES. Q: OH, OKAY. SO ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU ARE -- YOU HAVE SEEN THAT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A: I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE -- THAT THIS MANUAL IS -- IS A -- IS POLICY FOR OUR LABORATORY. IT MAY BE JUST A ROUGH DRAFT RIGHT NOW SUBJECT TO REVIEW. Q: WELL, IT CONTAINS VARIOUS PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINALISTS, DOES IT NOT? A: IT CONTAINS PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINALISTS, YES. Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE SEEN THESE WRITTEN PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES, BUT AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A: THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING, NO. Q: OKAY. ARE THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THAT MANUAL RULES THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW? A: I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE ENTIRE MANUAL, SO I CAN'T STATE YES OR NO FOR THAT. Q: OKAY. THEN AS THEY COME UP PERHAPS WE WILL LOOK AT THEM ONE AT A TIME, AND IF YOU WANT, THAT VOLUME IS YOURS AND YOU CAN TAKE IT OVER THE LUNCH PERIOD AND LOOK AT IT. FAIR ENOUGH? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT A PROPER QUESTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. GOLDBERG: I MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: THAT LAST COMMENT IS STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD IT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IS IT YOUR POSITION, SIR, THAT THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES AT THE CRIME LAB ARE COMMUNICATED ORALLY? A: THEY ARE COMMUNICATED THROUGH A SID ACADEMY THAT IS GIVEN TO CRIMINALISTS IN OUR DIVISION. SOME OF THE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT AND MUCH OF IT IS ORAL AND THROUGH EXPERIENCE, ON-THE-JOB TRAINING. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE SOME WRITTEN HANDOUTS THAT YOU GET? A: I HAVE RECEIVED HANDOUTS BEFORE, YES. Q: AND SOME OF THEM, JUST IN YOUR QUICK PERUSAL, SEEM TO BE IN THAT MANUAL? A: YES. Q: AND OTHERS ARE SORT OF COMMUNICATED ORALLY? A: SOME OF THEM ARE COMMUNICATED ORALLY, YES. Q: SORT OF AN ORAL TRADITION WITHIN THE LABORATORY? A: YES. Q: OKAY. NOW, THIS DOCUMENT, THIS MANUAL, UMM, THAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FOR PURPOSES OF REFERENCE, ISN'T IT? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION I THINK IT IS KEPT IN THERE, BUT I DON'T -- Q: AND THE REASON IT IS KEPT THERE IS IN CASE SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT, IT WOULD INFORM THEM AS TO THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS CONTAINED WITHIN IT? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. DO YOU KNOW? THE WITNESS: THAT IS POSSIBLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THERE IS ALSO ONE OF THESE MANUALS IN YOUR CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK? A: I'M NOT SURE OF THAT. Q: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT -- MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: VOLUME 1, PAGE 1, LET ME CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO -- MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SCHECK: PLEASE DO. MR. GOLDBERG: BEFORE COUNSEL READS ANYTHING? MR. SCHECK: I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANYTHING. I'M JUST GOING TO DIRECT THE WITNESS' ATTENTION TO A PARAGRAPH AND ASK HIM TO READ IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO FOUNDATION THAT HIS RECOLLECTION NEED TO BE REFRESHED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REQUIRED THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK? A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE OR NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO PERHAPS YOU COULD LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND. THE WITNESS: ACCORDING TO THE PARAGRAPH IT SAYS IT SHOULD BE. MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, WAIT. YOUR HONOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THE WITNESS WAS ASKED TO READ, SO I WOULD ASK -- OUT LOUD, SO IT IS NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED. WE HAVE A MAJOR FOUNDATION PROBLEM HERE. MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE INDICATED HE WASN'T SURE. THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SPENT HOW LONG IN THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT? A: APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF YEARS. Q: AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT PERIOD? A: THAT WOULD BE FROM 1987 TO 1990. Q: UMM, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT? A: AT THAT TIME? Q: AT ANY TIME, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL AFTER I HAD LEFT THE UNIT. Q: WELL, WHEN WAS THIS MANUAL CREATED? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: WELL, YOU SAID YOU LEFT IN 1990? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD THIS MANUAL HAVE BEEN PULLED TOGETHER IN 1992? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THERE IS A DATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THAT SAYS "REP A, 1992." Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, SIR, THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO ESTABLISH THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DAILY OPERATION OF THE CRIME SCENE FIELD UNIT? THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE, MR. SCHECK, IS YOU CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE SOMEBODY ON SOMETHING THEY HAVE NOT REFERRED TO IN FORMING THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON THIS DRAFT MANUAL, YOU CAN'T DO IT. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD FOR A MINUTE? THE COURT: BE MY GUEST. MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN MY INTENTIONS, IS THAT HE HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS A MANUAL THAT HE IS AWARE OF, HE HAS PERUSED THROUGH IT, HE HAS SEEN VARIOUS HANDOUTS. THIS MANUAL IS COMPOSED OF HANDOUTS ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. THE COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOUNDATION. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST -- THE COURT: NO, THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, SIR, THAT YOU GOT A CALL TO RESPOND ON THIS CASE AT ABOUT 5:00 A.M. FROM MISS MAZZOLA? A: NO. Q: WHAT TIME WAS IT? A: APPROXIMATELY 5:30. Q: 5:30. AND AT THAT TIME WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU? A: SHE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS A SCENE WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO IN WEST L.A. DIVISION. Q: ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT? A: I DON'T -- SHE MAY HAVE SAID IT WAS A HOMICIDE. Q: AND YOU THEN MET HER NEXT AT THE SID LABORATORY? A: YES. Q: SHE PICKED YOU UP I GUESS AT HOME. WAS THAT IT? A: NO. WE MET AT THE LABORATORY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT? A: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:45, AROUND THERE. Q SO THE FIRST CALL THAT YOU GOT ABOUT THIS CASE WAS YOU ARE SAYING AT 5:35? A: I BELIEVE I SAID AROUND 5:30. Q: AROUND 5:35. AND YOU NOW REALIZE THAT THAT IS FIVE HOURS -- ABOUT FIVE HOURS, FIVE AND A HALF HOURS AFTER OFFICER RISKE FIRST DISCOVERED THE VICTIMS AT THE SCENE ON BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID -- WHEN YOU CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES LATER IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER LEARN WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO? THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL BEING INFORMED OF THE EXACT TIME THAT THE BODIES WERE FOUND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WERE YOU INFORMED AS TO WHEN THE SCENE WAS SECURED? MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION READ BACK? THE COURT: YOU HAVE GOT IT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT USED TO THIS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED OF WHEN THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WAS FIRST SECURED? A: THE -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY DETECTIVE LANGE WHEN HE GAVE ME MY WALK-THROUGH. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARRIVED, YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT ABOUT 7:15? A: ACCORDING TO MY NOTES I ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT 7:10. Q: 7:10. AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY? A: YES, HE DID. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT TWO PEOPLE HAD BEEN MURDERED THERE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU LEARN, IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS AT BUNDY AND THE BODIES HAD BEEN DISCOVERED AT 12:00? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIMINALISTS SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? A: A REQUIREMENT? Q YES. ANY RULES OR PROCEDURES AS TO HOW LONG IT SHOULD TAKE FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT A CRIME SCENE ONCE YOU RECEIVE A CALL? A: ONCE WE RECEIVE A CALL WE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR, IF IT IS POSSIBLE. Q: WITHIN AN HOUR? A: WE TRY TO, YES. Q: OKAY. SO MISS MAZZOLA CALLED YOU AT 5:30? A: YES. Q: AND YOU GOT TO THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT TIME YOU ARE TELLING US? A: 7:10. Q: 7:10. SO WHAT IS THAT, AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES FROM THE TIME YOU WERE CALLED? A: AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. Q: FORTY MINUTES. BETTER. SO ABOUT TWO HOURS, RIGHT? A: NO, AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. Q: AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. MISS MAZZOLA WAS CALLED, YOU REALIZE, AT FIVE O'CLOCK, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY; SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT MISS MAZZOLA RECEIVED HER FIRST CALL AT 5:00 A.M.? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOUR RESPONSE TIME TO ROCKINGHAM WAS AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES? A: YES, IT WAS. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY WITH THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION? A: A REQUIREMENT? Q: YEAH. AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO START YOUR ACTIVITIES AT THE CRIME SCENE WITH A CONVERSATION WITH THE OFFICER THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: IT IS PREFERABLE. Q: WELL, ON YOUR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST ISN'T THERE A CATEGORY INDICATING "CRIME SCENE DISCUSSED WITH OFFICER IN CHARGE"? A: THERE IS A PLACE FOR A CHECK MARK, YES. Q: AND ISN'T THAT THE FIRST THING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE OR THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: NO. Q: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT? A: NO. Q: WHEN ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THAT? A: AFTER YOU CHECK IN WITH THE LOG-IN OFFICER. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU LOG IN AND THEN THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: IF IT IS POSSIBLE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE IS TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING? A: YES. Q: AND TO FIND OUT WHAT POSSIBLE EVIDENCE EXISTS AT THE SCENE THAT MAY NEED TO BE COLLECTED? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAD SUCH A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU LEARN THAT YOU WEREN'T JUST GOING TO BE COLLECTING EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT YOU WOULD SOON HAVE TO GO TO BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND THAT THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VICTIMS AT BUNDY BEING VERY CLOSE TO EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THEIR PHYSICAL PROXIMITY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NEED TO KNOW -- WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF CRIME SCENE YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GOING TO AFTER ROCKINGHAM? A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? Q: YEAH. WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM, ALL RIGHT, YOU KNEW YOU WOULD BE HAVING TO GO TO BUNDY NEXT, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU TOLD THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT DID -- HOW -- WERE YOU GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO JUST COLLECT ONE STAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AND THEN MOVE ON TO BUNDY? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN FOR THE CRIMINALISTS FIRST TO GO TO BUNDY, JUST COLLECT A RED STAIN OFF THE BRONCO AND THEN MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE? THE COURT: SURE, WITH THE REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALSO, COUNSEL -- WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR -- FROM THIS POINT ON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-LAWYER LIMIT ON SIDE BARS PER SIDE. THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWYERS UP HERE. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ELICIT FROM THE WITNESS, THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY, THEY ARE NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. THEY ARE ONLY BEING OFFERED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS SAID TO THIS WITNESS IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTIONS OF WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO NEXT AND WHAT HE WAS -- THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE CODE EXCEPTION? MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK IT IS -- IT IS WHATEVER THE EXACT EVIDENCE CODE IS FOR HEARSAY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED; IT IS ONLY BEING ELICITED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS SAID TO MR. FUNG AS TO HIS STATE OF MIND AS TO WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IN PROCEEDING WITH HIS INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM AND THEN HIS SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AT BUNDY. THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT-CONDUCT-IN-LIGHT-OF-WHAT-WAS-SAID-TO-HIM EXCEPTION? MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT IS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG. MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCY IN THAT CASE. WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND MR. FUNG'S STATE OF MIND BEING RELEVANT ON CERTAIN ISSUES, IT IS, BUT AT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AS TO WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS WITH RESPECT TO WHERE HE WAS GOING TO GO AND WHEN, I DON'T SEE WHY THAT IS RELEVANT. MR. SCHECK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I THINK WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE LANGE THAT WHEN HE LEFT THE CRIME SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM HE WENT TO BUNDY, THAT IT WAS HIS EXPECTATION THAT THE CRIMINALISTS WOULD BE FOLLOWING SOON AFTER. AND I WANT TO EXPLORE WITH THIS WITNESS WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY EVER TOLD HIM, NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED, FOR THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SAID. I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE TYPES OF STATEMENTS ARE HEARSAY AND I REALLY NEEDED TO ESTABLISH WHAT HE DID. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM OUT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REASK THE QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TO DISREGARD ANY DISRUPTIONS IN THE AUDIENCE. I THINK THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT SPOKE FOR ITSELF. MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. Q: MR. FUNG WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL THAT YOU DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY? A: I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL IF HE MENTIONED IT WAS DETECTIVE LANGE HIMSELF, BUT HE DID MENTION THERE WAS ANOTHER SCENE AT BUNDY. Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT AT THAT SCENE THERE WERE -- IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS' BODIES THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF THE NEED TO ARRIVE AT BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS, FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO GET THERE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: NO. Q: GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISN'T IT CERTAINLY DESIRABLE FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: FROM MY POINT OF VIEW? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS IS YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT THAT SCENE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS BEST YOU CAN? A: THAT IS PREFERABLE. THAT IS PREFERABLE THAT THAT IS DONE, YES. Q: SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS? A: YES. Q: YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHER ABOUT WHERE TO TAKE PICTURES? A: YES. Q: YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE FRAGILE TRACE EVIDENCE AS BEST YOU CAN? A: YES. Q: COLLECT IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE IS PRESERVED? A: IF NECESSARY, YES. Q: GET TO THAT CRIME SCENE BEFORE ANYBODY WALKS THROUGH IT WHO IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THERE? A: YES. Q: SO WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM NOW, YOU ARE TELLING US YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: BUT DID YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY HOURS IT WAS, WITHOUT KNOWING THE PRECISE TIMES, HOW MANY HOURS THE VICTIMS HAD BEEN AT BUNDY WITHOUT ANY CRIMINALISTS ARRIVING AT THE SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I ONLY KNEW THAT THE CRIME SCENE FROM BUNDY WAS FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE, SOME -- IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OR THE NIGHT BEFORE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU KNEW IT WAS THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND NOW YOU WERE ARRIVING AT ROCKINGHAM AT AROUND 7:15, 7:20? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED AGAIN. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID HE EXPRESS ANY URGENCY TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FINISH YOUR WORK AT ROCKINGHAM QUICKLY TO GET TO BUNDY? A: HE DID INFORM ME THAT I DID HAVE ANOTHER CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY AND HE DIDN'T RUSH ME ALONG, NO. Q: WELL, DID HE TELL YOU THAT -- DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE A VERY LONG TIME AT ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THE BUNDY SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? DID HE EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL THAT. Q: DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO HIM? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME EXTRA HELP BECAUSE YOU HAD THESE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: I BELIEVE I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER -- ANOTHER TEAM. Q: YOU ASKED HIM THAT? A: I THINK I DID. Q: AND YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER TEAM BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? A: IT WAS A RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO HIM IF HE WANTED IT. Q: WELL, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET A SET OF CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, DIDN'T YOU, AS YOU WERE TALKING WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE? A: I LEFT IT UP TO HIS DISCRETION. Q: HE TOLD YOU THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARY? A: HE NEVER SAID THAT. Q: WELL, DID HE SAY, "NO, WE DON'T NEED THE HELP, THE EXTRA HELP"? A: I DON'T RECALL IF HE EVER SAID THAT. Q: WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AS TO HOW HE RESPONDED TO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO GET SOME BACK-UP TO GET ANOTHER TEAM TO BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER YOU PLACED A CALL TO SID, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: TO NOTIFY SUPERVISORS? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A CASE THAT REQUIRED IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU PLACED THAT CALL AT 7:15 YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXACTLY AT 7:15, BUT I KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES WHEN I MADE THE CALL. Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, DID YOU CALL SID AND SPEAK TO A WOMAN NAMED LISA SIBETTA, S-I-B-E-T-T-A, SOMEBODY FROM TOXICOLOGY? DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING A FIRST CALL TO HER? A: I BELIEVE MY FIRST CALL WAS TO CRIMINALIST FLAHERTY IN TOXICOLOGY. Q: YOU WERE LOOKING FOR A SUPERVISOR? A: YES, I WAS. Q: YOU WERE LOOKING FOR MICHELE KESTLER? A: YES, I WAS. Q: SHE IS THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY OR WAS THE ACTING HEAD AT THAT TIME? A: SHE WAS A CO-ACTING. Q: CO-ACTING HEAD? ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU WERE LOOKING TO TALK WITH HER, WERE YOU NOT? A: I WAS LOOKING TO SPEAK WITH A SUPERVISOR. Q: RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU -- AND THAT IS BECAUSE -- WELL, YOU TELL US. WHAT WAS IT THAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR MIND THAT LED YOU TO CALL FOR A SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU EVEN ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE? A: THERE ARE GUIDELINES WITHIN OUR LABORATORY THAT IF THERE IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE OR A DOUBLE OR TRIPLE HOMICIDE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT SUPERVISORS BE NOTIFIED. Q THOSE WERE THE POLICIES YOU AND I DISCUSSED YESTERDAY? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: PRESS, UNUSUAL CASE? DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSING THOSE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN HANDOUT IN THE MANUAL WITH RESPECT TO THOSE POLICIES? A: NO, I HAVEN'T. Q: WELL, MOVING ON, SO YOU -- YOU FELT THE NEED TO CALL FOR THE SUPERVISOR AT 7:15 BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT? A: BEFORE I SPOKE TO HIM? Q: YES, BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MADE THIS FIRST CALL TO SID LOOKING FOR MICHELE KESTLER? A: NO. Q: THAT FIRST NOTIFICATION CALL WAS NOT BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: IT WAS AFTER. Q: IT WAS AFTER? A: YES. Q: UMM, DIDN'T YOU ALSO THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION AT 7:50 WITH GREG MATHESON? A: I -- IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES. Q: AND AT THAT TIME -- AND HE WAS A SUPERVISOR, WAS HE NOT? A: YES, HE WAS. Q: AND YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH -- A: OR HE IS. Q: -- WITH GREG MATHESON AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: YES. Q: WE WILL GET TO THAT CONVERSATION IN A MINUTE, BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID HE TELL YOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING SOME PROCESSING OF THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER THIS -- AND THAT WAS AFTER -- YOU REALIZED THAT AFTER THIS INITIAL CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, DID YOU? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND, UMM, IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, UMM, THAT YOU REALIZED THAT, UMM, ANDREA MAZZOLA COULD NOT ACT AS THE, QUOTE, OFFICER IN CHARGE, OF THIS CASE? A: I THOUGHT IT MORE PRUDENT THAT I BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE. Q: I THINK YOUR PHRASE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IS THAT AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER YOU REALIZED THAT MISS MAZZOLA SHOULD TAKE SOMETHING OF A BACKSEAT? ARE THOSE YOUR WORDS? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- I WILL WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU GAVE THAT EXPLANATION ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, THAT PRIOR TO GOING TO THE SCENE, WHEN YOU WERE FILLING OUT YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS OFFICER IN CHARGE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE? REMEMBER THAT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON THIS HOMICIDE CASE UNTIL YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND SPOKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU FIRST REALIZED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING A VEHICLE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN TO YOUR -- YOU HAVE A FORM THAT IS KNOWN AS A VEHICLE CHECKLIST, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU FILLED ONE OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT? A: ONE WAS FILLED OUT, YES. Q: DO YOU HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU? A: YES, I DO. Q: COULD YOU TURN TO THE FIRST PAGE OF IT. A: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: COULD I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: I APOLOGIZE, COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM, WAS THAT -- WITHDRAWN. ON THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM THERE IS ALSO A BOX THAT INDICATES WHO IS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE SEARCH, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND ON THAT BOX IT IS LISTED AS ANDREA MAZZOLA AS BEING IN CHARGE -- THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE SEARCH, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: SO ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU HADN'T GIVEN UP THE IDEA THAT MAYBE MISS MAZZOLA WOULD STILL BE SORT OF ACTING AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM? A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOLD US THE ONLY REASON THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON THE ROCKINGHAM CHECKLIST IS THAT IT WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, RIGHT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID ON DIRECT. A: THAT WAS THE REASON WHY SHE WAS PUT IN THE "OFFICER IN CHARGE" SPACE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND -- BUT AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN TO THE SCENE AND AFTER YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE SEARCHING THE BRONCO, ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS STILL LISTED ON THE VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: NOW, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE USE OF THIS WORD "TRAINEE" WITH RESPECT TO MISS MAZZOLA. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND UMM, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DESCRIPTION OF MISS MAZZOLA AS A TRAINEE? YOU DON'T THINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO DESCRIBE HER ON JUNE 13TH AS A TRAINEE; IS THAT RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I THINK A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF HER IS CRIMINALIST 1. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CRIMINALIST 1, BUT IN TERMS OF HER LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE, YOU DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS -- WHAT WORD WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE, IF NOT TRAINEE? WOULD YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD "NOVICE," THAT SHE WAS A NOVICE IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: IT IS VAGUE, TOO. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. Q: YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HER -- WHEN YOU HIRE ON AT SID YOU AUTOMATICALLY DAY ONE ON THE JOB YOU ARE A CRIMINALIST 1, RIGHT? A: IF YOU ARE HIRED IN THAT CAPACITY, YES. Q: RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU GET ON THE JOB YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY A CRIMINALIST 1, FAIR TO SAY? A: YES. Q: BUT BEING A CRIMINALIST 1 DOESN'T TELL ONE MUCH ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE, CORRECT? A: IN REGARD TO? Q: HOW MANY CRIME SCENES YOU HAVE PROCESSED, WHAT YOU KNOW? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND SO IT IS A PERIOD -- WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE COURSE OF -- THERE IS A COURSE OF TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST 1 THAT ONE GOES THROUGH IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE? A: YES. Q: YOU LEARN BY EXPERIENCE? A: YES. Q: AND IN TERMS OF LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE, MISS MAZZOLA WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS? FAIR ENOUGH? A: SHE WAS AT THE BEGINNING, YES. Q: WOULD IT BE FAIR TO CALL HER A ROOKIE IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY "ENTRY LEVEL." MR. SCHECK: I AM LOOKING FOR A WORD THAT THE WITNESS IS COMFORTABLE WITH. THE COURT: THERE HAVE BEEN ROOKIES OF THE YEAR WHO HAVE BEEN MVP'S. MR. SCHECK: SURE THING. Q: WELL, WOULD YOU CALL HER A NOVICE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ENTRY LEVEL? HOW ABOUT THAT? A: YES. Q: SHE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AT THE BEGINNING OF HER LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE PROCESS, AT THE BEGINNING OF IT? A: SHE IS STARTING IT, YES. Q: SHE WAS STARTING OUT? A: YES. Q: NOW, DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN YOU WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT WHETHER HELP WAS NEEDED, THAT MISS MAZZOLA WAS THIS ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO WAS STARTING OUT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: MEANING YOU ARE NOT SURE? A: I'M NOT SURE. Q: DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL HIM THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU ARRIVED WITH AT THE CRIME SCENE WAS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THAT WAS STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME HELP IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T YOU THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO TELL HIM THAT ONE OF THE REASONS YOU NEEDED HELP IS THAT YOU WERE WITH A PERSON THAT WAS ENTRY LEVEL AND JUST STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO TELL THAT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU AT ALL INTIMIDATED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU AT ALL RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENTS? A: NO. Q: WHEN HE TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT YOU OUGHT TO GET SOME EXTRA HELP IN THIS CASE, WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO QUESTION THAT DECISION? MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT EXTRA HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY? A: I ASKED HIM IF ANOTHER TEAM -- IF HE WANTED ANOTHER TEAM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU -- AS I THINK YOU JUST TOLD US, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WAS YOU KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THE CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: NOT -- THAT WASN'T THE SPECIFIC REASON, NO. Q: WELL, THAT WAS ONE REASON? DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL US THAT, THAT WAS ONE REASON? A: I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT, NO. Q: NO? WELL, WHEN YOU MADE THIS SUGGESTION THAT MORE HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID HE JUST IGNORE THAT SUGGESTION, NOT RESPOND TO YOU AT ALL? A: NO. Q: HE DIDN'T IGNORE IT? A: NO, HE DIDN'T. Q: HE SAID NO, WE DON'T NEED ANY EXTRA HELP? A: I BELIEVE HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE PREFERRED THAT ONE TEAM HANDLE BOTH CRIME SCENES SO THAT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WOULD NOT BE MESSED UP. Q: THAT IS WHAT HE SAID? A: SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN HE SAID THAT, DID YOU THEN RESPOND TO HIM, "WELL, UMM, WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE ONE OF THE PEOPLE I'M WORKING WITH IS ENTRY LEVEL, JUST STARTING OUT"? DID YOU SAY THAT TO HIM AT THAT POINT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERN TO HIM THAT WHATEVER WORRIES HE HAD ABOUT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, UMM, IT WAS STILL MORE IMPORTANT TO GET ANOTHER TEAM OF CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS ARRIVED? A: I DID NOT SAY THAT TO HIM. Q: DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN WHEN HE SAID TO YOU, NO, I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE WITH ONE TEAM? DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT THAT IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. MAYBE I COULD BE HEARD ABOUT THAT TO EXPLAIN IT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER -- MAYBE WE BETTER HAVE THE COURT REPORTER REPEAT THE QUESTION. THE COURT: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS MOVED THE BODY? THE WITNESS: NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, NOW, WERE YOU WORRIED WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT OTHER CRIMINALISTS BE CALLED IN TO HELP? WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WORKING WITH THIS PERSON WHO WAS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WHEN YOU WERE WORKING WITH THE PERSON WHO IS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT THAT PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE SLOWER? MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. ARE YOU FINISHED? A: WHEN TWO PEOPLE ARE WORKING, SOMETIMES IT GOES FASTER. Q: BUT WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH -- HAD YOU EVER WORKED WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA BEFORE THIS DAY? A: YES, I HAD. Q: HOW MANY CRIME SCENES HAD YOU DONE WITH HER? A: ONE. Q: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE. Q: TWO DAYS BEFORE DID YOU A CRIME SCENE WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA? A: YES. Q: WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE? A: WHERE SHE -- WE WERE WORKING AS A TEAM, YES. Q: WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE? YOU DID A CRIME SCENE TWO DAYS BEFORE WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA? ARE YOU SURE OF THAT? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU HAD NO CONCERN -- WERE YOU WORRIED -- WITHDRAWN. WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH A PERSON WHO IS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT, DON'T YOU FEEL IT IS REQUIRED FOR YOU TO OBSERVE WHAT SHE IS DOING MORE THAN YOU WOULD IF IT WERE SOME OTHER CRIMINALIST 2 OR 3? A: YES. Q: SO WOULDN'T THE NEED TO OBSERVE WHAT THIS ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WAS DOING MAKE PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE SLOWER? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: WELL, IF YOU HAVE TO OBSERVE HER, YOU CAN'T BE OFF DOING SOMETHING ELSE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT SLOWER? A: WHERE I WOULD LOSE TIME IN ONE AREA, I COULD MAKE UP TIME IN ANOTHER AREA, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THERE. Q: WELL, IF THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THERE, BOTH OF WHOM WERE TRAINED, IT WOULD GO FASTER, RIGHT? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: NO? WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WOULD PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON HER? A: WAS I WORRIED ABOUT IT? Q: YEAH. A: I WAS AWARE OF IT. Q: WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL OBJECT. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM WOULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT WAS NOT A CONCERN TO ME AT THAT TIME. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DIDN'T CROSS YOUR MIND? A: I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT, NO. Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF CASE WOULD PRODUCE A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES? WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS THAT MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM? A: THAT WOULD BE FOR ANY CASE, NOT JUST FOR ANY -- FOR A HIGH-PROFILE CASE. IF THERE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON OR A PERSON JUST STARTING OUT, I WOULD WATCH THEM MORE CLOSELY THAN SOMEONE WHO IS EXPERIENCED. Q: SO IN YOUR MIND THAT MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM YOU REALIZED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THERE WAS A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES, RIGHT? THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR REQUEST FOR HELP, THAT THERE WAS A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BECAUSE YOU WERE WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AND THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE? A: YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE. COULD WE GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME? Q: SURE. I'M ASKING YOU, YOU HAVE -- WE AGREED THAT YOU KNEW, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, RIGHT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: YOU KNEW THAT? A: YES. Q: YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD TO GO TO ANOTHER CRIME SCENE WHERE THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE? A: YES. Q: YOU KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE PRESS PEOPLE AT THESE CRIME SCENES? A: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD -- I ASSUMED THERE WOULD BE. Q: YOU ANTICIPATED IT, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: YOU ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE POLICE BRASS AT THESE SCENES WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVEMENT? A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO. Q: DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "BRASS"? Q: HIGHER-UPS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE SCENE WATCHING? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS VAGUE AS TO "HIGHER-UPS." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. Q: UMM, HIGH LEVEL OFFICERS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK? DID YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THEY MAY COME TO THE SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK CAN ALWAYS COME TO A SCENE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING TO THESE TWO SCENES? A: THEY COULD HAVE COME, YES. Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOUR STATE OF MIND WAS. DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? A: I KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO PUTTING THESE FACTORS TOGETHER, SHE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, IT IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, THERE WILL BE PRESS AT THE SCENES, THERE WILL BE HIGH-RANKING PEOPLE AT THE SCENES, DIDN'T YOU BECOME CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER REFUSED YOUR REQUEST FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THERE WOULD BE A GREATER POSSIBILITY OF MISTAKES HERE BECAUSE YOU WERE USING AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE. THE COURT: IT ASSUMES ONE FACT THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE AS WELL, ALSO MISSTATES ONE PIECE OF THE EVIDENCE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID -- MAYBE THE WORD "REFUSED" IS A PROBLEM HERE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID NOT TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION FOR EXTRA HELP, RIGHT? A: I DID NOT SUGGEST TO HIM -- MR. GOLDBERG: THE SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT EXTRA HELP WAS NEEDED, RIGHT? A: NO, I ASKED HIM. Q: YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED EXTRA HELP? A: YES. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU NO? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WE ARE FOCUSING ON THAT MOMENT. NOW, AT THAT MOMENT, REVIEWING THE FACTORS AGAIN, ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, PRESS CASE, HIGH-RANKING OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, DIDN'T YOU THINK AT THAT MOMENT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BEING MADE UNLESS YOU GOT EXTRA HELP? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THINKING ABOUT THAT WHEN I WAS AT THE SCENE. THE COURT: MADAM COURT REPORTER, WHAT IS YOUR STATUS? REPORTER OLSON: I'M FINE. THE COURT: CAN YOU FINISH THE HOUR? REPORTER OLSON: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO FOLLOW UP WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND SAY, "DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I THINK THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO GET MORE HELP IN THIS CASE"? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. ARGUMENTATIVE, ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER SINCE JUNE 13TH? A: YES. Q: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER THIS ISSUE OF TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? A: NO. Q: THAT HASN'T ARISEN? A: I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH HIM. Q: HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER CRITICIZED YOU FOR NOT TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE THERE AT THE SCENE WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER TELL YOU THAT HE DIDN'T THINK AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WAS THE KIND OF PERSON HE WOULD LIKE WORKING ON THIS CASE? A: DID HE EVER STATE THAT? Q: YES. DID HE EVER STATE THAT TO YOU? A: NO. Q: NOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO PROCESS A RED STAIN ON THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: BUT THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO, WAS THERE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: WASN'T IT PROPER TO HAVE A YELLOW TAPE SURROUNDING THAT BRONCO SO THAT NOBODY COULD GET TO IT, SECURE IT AS BEING WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE? A: IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO DENOTE A CRIME SCENE. Q: WELL, ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO SURROUND IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T APPROACH IT AND TOUCH IT? A: IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT, YES. Q: WELL, IN YOUR JUDGMENT DIDN'T THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE PUTTING A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THAT IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE? A: IN THE MORNING? Q: THAT MORNING. A: NO. Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK SO? A: NO. Q: WELL, WEREN'T THEY ASKING YOU TO TAKE A RED STAIN OFF THE DOOR HANDLE OF THAT BRONCO? A: YES. Q: DIDN'T YOU TELL US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU LOOKED INTO THAT BRONCO AND YOU SAW WHAT YOU THOUGHT WERE BLOOD STAINS IN THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND DID ANYBODY EXPRESS CONCERN TO YOU THAT LATER THAT BRONCO WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE PROCESSED FOR FINGERPRINTS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME TO PUT A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DIDN'T WALK OVER AND TOUCH THAT CAR? MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE WORD "APPROPRIATE." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: AT THAT TIME IN THE MORNING THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NOBODY OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS VERY QUIET AND YELLOW TAPE MAY HAVE ATTRACTED EVEN MORE PEOPLE, SO THAT -- THE USE OF IT WASN'T NECESSARY. THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: THAT HAS BEEN A LONG-STANDING POLICY IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, HASN'T IT? A: YES. Q: YOU ARE AWARE OF A MEMO FROM A PERSON NAMED DARRYL GATES? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MEMO BY DARRYL GATES ABOUT THIS ISSUE? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MEMO, BUT I -- I AM AWARE OF ONE THAT TOUCHES THAT TOPIC. Q: YOU HAVE THAT MANUAL -- WHO IS DARRYL GATES, INCIDENTALLY? I AM NOT FROM AROUND HERE. A: DARRYL GATES IS THE PREVIOUS POLICE CHIEF. Q: HE WAS A POLICE CHIEF HERE FOR A LONG TIME, WASN'T HE? A: YES. Q: AND WERE -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN YOUR EIGHT YEARS AT SID HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN CRIMINALISTS WHO GO TO INVESTIGATE THE SCENES AND THE DETECTIVES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENES IN TERMS OF PROPER PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I HAVE BEEN WITH SID FOR TEN YEARS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY? A: AND I AM NOT AWARE OF CONFLICTS AS YOU HAVE STATED. Q: IN YOUR TEN YEARS AT SID YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A DISAGREEMENT WITH A DETECTIVE AT A CRIME SCENE AS TO HOW EVIDENCE SHOULD BE GATHERED? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YEAH. A: IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY SUGGESTIONS -- THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. SCHECK. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STAND SOME PLACE WHERE YOU DON'T BLOCK THE JURORS. MR. SCHECK: OH, I'M VERY SORRY. THE COURT: THANK YOU. THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY SUGGESTIONS TO THE DETECTIVE AND I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE DETECTIVES COOPERATE WITH MY SUGGESTIONS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, DID IT? A: HOW DO YOU MEAN? Q: WELL, YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU WERE GOING TO NEED MORE HELP AND HE DIDN'T TAKE IT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: MAYBE IT IS EASIER -- GIVE ME A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS EASIER TO FIND IT IN MY BOOK. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I SHOW YOU THAT DOCUMENT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS A DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE CRIMINALISTS? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT INDICATES THAT THE INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I OBJECT FOR A MOMENT? I DON'T THINK IT IS PROPER FOR COUNSEL TO READ FROM THE DOCUMENT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? A: SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? Q: YES. A: YES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT POLICE MANUAL, ARE YOU NOT? A: I HAVEN'T COMMITTED IT TO MEMORY. Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A -- ANY REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PEOPLE FROM SID TO INSTRUCT ALL OFFICERS IN THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING CURRENT METHODS OF COLLECTING, MARKING AND PRESERVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION YOU ARE READING THAT FROM. Q: YES. BUT IT SOUND -- DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU LIKE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS NOT RELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: IT -- YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU WERE SAYING TO US THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO PROTECT THE BRONCO IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT LATER IN THE DAY THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE GOING TO THAT SCENE? A: YES. Q: I MEAN, YOU KNEW AT THIS POINT THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WAS THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. SIMPSON? MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO "THIS POINT." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AT 7:15 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM YOU KNEW THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WAS MR. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE? A: I KNEW THAT WAS HIS RESIDENCE. Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDED MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT? A: I DON'T RECALL IF HE RELAYED THAT TO ME OR NOT. Q: HE MIGHT HAVE? A: HE MIGHT HAVE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT AS THE DAY WENT ON THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE GOING TO THAT ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE AND WOULD BE AROUND THAT SCENE? A: I ANTICIPATED THAT THE BRONCO WOULD HAVE BEEN TOWED AWAY AND PUT INTO IMPOUND. Q: YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM FROM AROUND 7, WAS IT 15 OR 7:20? A: 7:10. Q: 7:10 IN THE MORNING UNTIL YOU LEFT AT WHAT TIME? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: AROUND 10:15, TEN O'CLOCK? A: I LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY TEN O'CLOCK. Q: TEN O'CLOCK. SO YOU ARE THERE TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES? I THINK I HAVE GOT THAT ONE RIGHT. A: TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES, YES. Q: AND DURING THAT TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES WERE MORE PEOPLE ARRIVING AT THE SCENE AND WATCHING WHAT WAS GOING ON? A: NO. Q: IN THOSE THREE HOURS YOU STILL -- WHEN YOU LEFT THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE ON THAT -- SURROUNDING THAT BRONCO, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DIDN'T IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT A SOUND PROCEDURE, AS YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM? A: TWO OFFICERS WERE IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THAT EVIDENCE AND YELLOW TAPE IS NOT A -- IS NOT AS GOOD A PROTECTION AS AN ACTUAL OFFICER. Q: ISN'T THE BEST POSSIBLE PROTECTION THE STANDARD PROTECTION, TO HAVE YELLOW TAPES AND OFFICERS? A: THAT IS ONE METHOD. Q: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT -- WITHDRAWN. WAS IT YOUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A YELLOW TAPE SHOULD BE PUT AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: NO. Q: WELL, AREN'T YOU THE PERSON THAT IS SUPPOSED TO ESSENTIALLY BE CALLING THE SHOTS WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE IS GATHERED? A: WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE IS GATHERED, YES. Q: WELL, ISN'T THE PROTECTION OF IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THAT PROVINCE, THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE, PROTECTING IT WITH YELLOW TAPE? A: THAT -- IN MY OPINION THAT IS THE -- UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE. Q: SO THAT IS NOT YOUR DECISION; THAT IS THE OFFICER'S DECISION? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS WHY YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT, BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR DECISION? A: IF I THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY, I WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED IT TO THEM. Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY? A: NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE -- WELL, AT WHAT TIME? AT WHAT TIME WOULD IT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO PUT YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: WHEN THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE AROUND THAN MAY HAVE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PREFERABLE. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU LEFT, DID YOU MAKE THE SUGGESTION TO ANY OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, YOU KNOW, "GUYS, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO SOON"? THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING, DID YOU? THE COURT: "GUYS." MR. SCHECK: WHAT? THE COURT: "GUYS." MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY. Q: DID YOU, WHEN YOU LEFT, TELL ANY MALE OR FEMALE OFFICERS AT THE SCENE THAT PERHAPS IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: I DID NOT STATE THAT, NO. Q: WASN'T THAT A MISTAKE? A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A MISTAKE OR NOT. Q: AT 7:50, AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU SPOKE TO GREG MATHESON, DID YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU -- GREG MATHESON IS A SUPERVISOR AT SID? A: YES. Q: AND YOU -- AT THAT TIME DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO HIM THAT YOU HAD TWO CRIME SCENES? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO HIM THAT THE VICTIMS AT BUNDY, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND YOU WERE NOW TALKING TO HIM AT 7:50 IN THE MORNING? A: I DID SPEAK TO HIM REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE -- AS I KNEW THEM. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT CONVERSATION. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN THAT THE CRIMINALISTS MAY NOT GET TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: I DON'T THINK I EXPRESSED THAT TO HIM, NO. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN ABOUT USING AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO WAS JUST STARTING OUT TO DO THE WORK IN THIS CASE? A: I TOLD HIM WHO WAS WITH ME. Q: DID HE TELL -- DID YOU TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE OF MISS MAZZOLA? A: I DON'T THINK I HAD TO. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF MISS MAZZOLA'S EXPERIENCE LEVEL? A: YES. Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE FACT THAT YOU HAD SUGGESTED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM OR NOT. Q: DID YOU -- MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL -- I'M SORRY, COUNSEL. I WILL MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY. THE COURT: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, BUT THE ANSWER WAS SUCH THAT -- THE ANSWER WILL STAND. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU -- DID YOU SUGGEST TO GREG MATHESON THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT OR NOT. I DON'T THINK I DID. Q: DID HE ASK YOU IF YOU NEEDED MORE HELP? A: HE MAY HAVE. Q: AND DID YOU SAY NO? A: AT THE TIME I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T THINK I DID. Q: NOW -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD TURN NOW TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM FOR A MINUTE. YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RED BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU OBSERVED? A: YES. Q: NOW, DID YOU -- IN TERMS OF HOW YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA APPROACHED THIS, DID YOU PERFORM ANY WHAT IS KNOWN AS PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD DROPS? MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL OBJECT BASED UPON THE EARLIER RULINGS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DID? A: IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN IN TERMS OF APPROACHING THESE RED STAINS, THERE IS ONE THAT I THINK IS ITEM NO. 1, THE ONE ON THE DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND BEFORE YOU SWATCHED THAT STAIN YOU DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF THAT STAIN YOU DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT? A: I'M NOT SURE WHICH ORDER THAT OCCURRED IN. Q: WELL, WITH RESPECT TO, UMM, THE NEXT -- THIS IS ITEM NO. 4, CORRECT, THAT IS A RED STAIN THAT YOU FOUND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU FIRST GO OUT AND MEASURE THAT BEFORE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF IT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: MEASURE ITS LOCATION? A: I'M NOT SURE IF THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN FIRST OR THE MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN FIRST. Q: DID YOU DO THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON NO. 4 BEFORE YOU TOOK THE PICTURE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DID THAT WITH ITEM NO. 5 AS WELL, FIRST THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST AND THEN THE PICTURE? A: YES. Q: AND ITEM NO. 6, I BELIEVE? A: YES. Q: AND ITEM NO. 7? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND ITEM NO. 8? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: AND INCIDENTALLY, ON THE -- WHEN YOU WENT TO BUNDY AND YOU -- YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WERE DEALING WITH ITEMS 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52, DID YOU FOLLOW ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROCESS? A: ESSENTIALLY, YES. Q: SO YOU DID THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS ON THOSE ITEMS FIRST AND THEN THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN? A: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ORDER. Q: IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY? A: YES. Q: NOW, IN TERMS OF THESE RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PATTERN OF RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND WAS LEADING FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE BRONCO OR THE BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND THERE IS -- WHY DON'T WE TRY USING THIS -- ONE OF THESE DIAGRAMS FIRST. LET ME START WITH -- LET ME START WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTION'S BOARDS, IF I MIGHT. THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAYBE I COULD HELP. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, THIS IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT WHICH? MR. SCHECK: YES. IT IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 169, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. PROCEED. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. MR. FUNG, COULD YOU STEP DOWN HERE WITH ME FOR ONE MINUTE. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: NOW, YOU FOUND ITEM NO. 4, A RED STAIN, SOMEWHERE, UMM -- MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO COUNSEL FOR A SECOND? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE JURORS ARE HAVING TROUBLE SEEING. IT IS TOO LOW. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED. HE NEEDS TO MOVE IT UP. MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, NOW YOU FOUND DROP NO. 4 ON ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES, I DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. UMM, AND YOU MEASURED THAT TO BE I GUESS 83 NINE (SIC) INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH CURB, TWO FEET WEST OF THE SOUTH CURB? A: YES. Q: APPROXIMATELY WHERE I'M POINTING HERE ON THE DIAGRAM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING). Q: THEN YOU FOUND A RED STAIN THAT YOU IDENTIFIED AS NO. 5. COULD YOU POINT APPROXIMATELY TO WHERE THAT IS ON THE DIAGRAM. IF IT HELPS -- A: I'M REFERRING TO A SKETCH. Q: ALL RIGHT. IN FACT, IS IT THIS SKETCH THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)? A: YES. Q: OKAY. THAT IS THE SKETCH THAT YOU FILLED OUT -- THIS WAS FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THIS WAS RECOVERED, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO COME OVER YOU CAN LOOK AT MY SKETCH AND I WILL JUST HOLD IT OUT FOR YOU. A: APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING). Q: APPROXIMATELY HERE? THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE GATE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6. COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THAT IS? A: (INDICATING). Q: WHICH IS -- A: APPROXIMATE. Q: APPROXIMATELY. NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE WERE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE FEET BETWEEN DROPS NO. 4 AND 5? A: APPROXIMATELY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF ONE WERE TO START ON A LINE TO THE PLACE THAT I'M POINTING HERE, WHAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT IN TERMS OF THE GATE? WHAT DIRECTION WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT AS BEING ON THIS DIAGRAM? THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE GATE? A: THIS IS NORTHWEST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND. Q: NORTHWEST IS AS IT IS DEPICTED ON THIS DIAGRAM, I GUESS? A: AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE FENCE OR THE GATE? Q: JUST THE GATE? A: THE GATE ITSELF? Q: ON THIS LINE, YEAH. IF ONE WERE TO BASICALLY -- A: RIGHT HERE -- RIGHT HERE WOULD BE THE NORTH END OF THE GATE, (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. FROM THE NORTH END OF THE GATE, IF ONE WERE TO WALK IN A LINE TO THE AREA WHERE THERE IS -- THE GARAGE IS DEPICTED, OKAY, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? A: YOU ARE SAYING FROM HERE, (INDICATING), TO HERE, (INDICATING)? Q: NO, FROM HERE TO THE PATHWAY, (INDICATING). A: FROM HERE TO HERE, (INDICATING)? Q: THAT'S RIGHT. IF YOU WERE TO DRAW A LINE, WALK ON A LINE FROM THAT ENTRYWAY TO THE GATE DIRECTLY TO THE PATHWAY, OKAY, HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT ROUGHLY TO BE? A: I DON'T RECALL THE DIMENSIONS. I WOULD HAVE TO SEE SOMETHING. Q: HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER DISCUSSED A THEORY WITH YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON CAME HOME IN THIS CASE AND WENT -- OPENED THE GATE, ALL RIGHT, AND THEN WALKED ALONG THE SOUTH PATHWAY TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IT IS ALSO HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, JUST GOING ON A LINE, ALL RIGHT, FROM WHERE YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, RIGHT -- A: YES. Q: -- YOU DIDN'T FIND -- THAT IS ABOUT HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE? A: I TOLD YOU I DON'T -- I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE. Q: WELL, THE DISTANCE FROM THE GATE TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED WAS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET? A: FROM THE GATE TO THE GLOVE? Q: YEAH. A: I -- I WILL HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. THE COURT: ARE YOU TESTIFYING, MR. SCHECK? MR. SCHECK: I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION. THE COURT: HE SAID I WILL HAVE TO TAKE WHAT YOU SAY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TELL YOU WHAT, LET'S TRY IT THIS WAY: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS DOCUMENT AS PEOPLE'S -- PEOPLE'S -- AS DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1072. (DEFT'S 1072 FOR ID = DOCUMENT) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE, MR. FUNG? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: AND WHAT IS IT? A: THIS IS A SKETCH -- NO, IT IS A -- IT IS A SURVEYOR'S DRAWING OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT GIVES DISTANCES WITH RESPECT TO, UMM -- HOW FAR IT IS FROM ROCKINGHAM AVENUE TO THE GARAGE AND THE GUEST HOUSE AREAS? A: YES, IT DOES. Q: AND THAT WAS DRAWN BY A SURVEYOR? YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS? A: YES. Q: AND AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED IT IS ACCURATE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT WHAT THIS WITNESS' CONCERN WAS. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, DOES THIS PERSON WORK WITH YOU AT SID? A: NOT ANY MORE. Q: DID AT THE TIME HE DID THIS? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THAT WAS BEING PREPARED? A: FOR -- MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IT WAS BEING -- EVENTUALLY IT WOULD BE PREPARED? MR. SCHECK: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: PART OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES AT SID IN SOME CASES IS TO HAVE SUCH A SURVEYOR COME OUT AND MEASURE THE SCENE? A: IN SOME CASES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THIS CASE THAT WAS DONE? A: YES. Q: IT IS DONE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT SID WHEN APPROPRIATE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY FOUNDATION, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND IN APPROPRIATE CASES IT IS -- IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT SID THESE KIND OF SURVEYOR'S DIAGRAMS ARE PREPARED? A: YES. Q: AND THE PERSON THAT PREPARES IT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THOSE MEASUREMENTS ACCURATE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OFFER THIS DIAGRAM AND ASK THAT IT BE PUT ON THE ELMO. THE COURT: DO THE MEASUREMENTS ON THAT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE? THE WITNESS: THEY APPEAR TO BE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. NOW, LOOKING AT THAT, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE GATE AND WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND IS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT AS IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE WITNESS CAN ONLY TESTIFY WHAT HE SEES. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU TOOK MEASUREMENTS, DID YOU NOT, MR. FUNG, ON JUNE 13TH? A: YES, I DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THE -- LET ME ASK YOU: IN TERMS OF THIS DIAGRAM OVER HERE, (INDICATING), THIS IS THE -- I'M POINTING NOW AND I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 169, THIS IS THE GARAGE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING), YOU TELL ME, THIS IS THE -- WHERE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE GUEST HOUSE AS DEPICTED IN THIS DIAGRAM? WOULD IT BE THE AREA I'M POINTING RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART IS THE GUEST HOUSE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, OKAY, DO YOU SEE A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES "GUEST ROOMS"? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE SEES IN REGARD TO THE GUEST ROOMS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES, I DO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU LOCATE THAT FOR US ON PEOPLE'S 169? A: IT APPEARS TO BE THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). Q: WHERE DOES IT START? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THE AREA DESIGNATED "GUEST ROOMS," WOULD THAT BEGIN AS WHAT IS MARKED ON PEOPLE'S 169 AS THE AREA THAT SAYS "OFFICE"? A: THIS DIAGRAM APPEARS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE DIAGRAM UP ON THE BOARD. Q: IN WHAT RESPECT? A: THERE IS NO INDENTATION IN THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). MR. SCHECK: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS IS INDICATING THAT THERE IS AN INDENTATION BETWEEN THE -- I GUESS THE HORIZONTAL AREA BETWEEN WHAT IS THE OFFICE AND THE AREA WHERE THERE IS A CALL OUT FOR NO. 14. Q: IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE HE INDICATED THAT THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION ON 169, BUT THERE IS ONE ON THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT THAT YOU SEE PROJECTED ON THE ELMO? A: YES. Q: WHICH IS ACCURATE? A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO PHOTOGRAPHS OR VISIT THE SCENE AGAIN. I DON'T RECALL. Q: BUT OTHER THAN THAT INDENTATION, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU TO TELL US IF -- WHERE THE AREA THAT IS INDICATED AS "GUEST ROOMS" ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO IS ON PEOPLE'S 169? A: THIS WOULD BE VERY ROUGH. APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). Q: INDICATING THE AREA BY WHAT IS MARKED AS "OFFICE"; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. THE COURT: ON 169. MR. SCHECK: ON 169. Q: NOW, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WORKED TOGETHER TO MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS ON JUNE 13TH? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT OTHERS WOULD LATER BE RELYING ON YOUR MEASUREMENTS AS TO WHERE VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE WERE FOUND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU KNEW THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT LATER IF PEOPLE WERE TO MAKE ANALYSES -- SUBSEQUENT ANALYSES OF THE SCENE? A: IT COULD BE BECOME A FACTOR, YES. Q: JUST LIKE AT BUNDY YOU MADE MEASUREMENTS AS TO WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNEW THAT THOSE MEASUREMENTS WOULD BE RELIED UPON LATER FOR ALL KIND OF ANALYSIS? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: NOW, ON JUNE 13TH YOU MEASURED THE GLOVE AS BEING LOCATED 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE. NOW, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE IS? A: THE GUEST HOUSE? Q: YES. A: I BELIEVE MY DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION WAS 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL. Q: DOESN'T YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION READ "THE GLOVE" -- UNDER "LOCATION OF ITEM," "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL"? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE? A: THAT IS WHAT CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WROTE, YES. Q: OH. WELL, 100 -- LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, WHERE WOULD THAT BE ON THE DIAGRAM IN THE ELMO? A: THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF REFERENCE THAT IS REFERRED TO -- Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT QUESTION. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. MR. SCHECK: MOVE TO STRIKE HIS ANSWER AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MY QUESTION, MR. FUNG, IS FROM LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, WHERE WOULD A LOCATION 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL BE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, THE MEASUREMENT HERE IS WRONG, ISN'T IT? A: AS YOU ARE INTERPRETING IT IT IS WRONG, BUT FROM WHERE I KNOW THE POINT OF REFERENCE IS, THE MEASUREMENT IS CORRECT OR VERY CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS. Q: WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE ENTRY HERE OF 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL, THAT ENTRY, AS WRITTEN, IS AN INCORRECT ENTRY? A: THAT IS INCORRECT. MR. GOLDBERG: THERE WAS NO -- THE WITNESS: YOUR STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. MR. GOLDBERG: EXCUSE ME, MR. FUNG. I OBJECT. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY TO THAT FACT. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? A: YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT ENTRY IS INCORRECT. Q: WELL, THE ENTRY ITSELF, IF ONE WERE TO MEASURE 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE A LOCATION, UMM, THAT IS FAR BEYOND THIS AIR CONDITIONER ALL THE WAY SOMEWHERE INTO THE PLANTING AREA OUT BACK, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF ONE WERE TO CALL THE GUEST HOUSE -- AS I THINK YOU PREVIOUSLY DID, THIS OFFICE AREA; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: -- AS DEPICTED ON 169 -- THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HAVE SUSTAINED FOUR IRRELEVANCY OBJECTIONS IN A ROW AS TO THAT QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT MISS MAZZOLA, WHEN SHE MADE AN ENTRY HERE, WAS INCORRECT? A: I AM NOT SAYING THAT. Q: YOU ARE SAYING THAT -- WELL, WHAT WAS THE GUEST HOUSE THEN? A: THE GUEST HOUSE IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OR AREA TO LOCATE WHERE THE GLOVE WAS. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE? A: NO. Q: IS THAT YOUR REFERENCE POINT? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THE WITNESS: NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? A: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE GUEST HOUSE IN THAT ENTRY DEPICTS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE GLOVE WAS. THE 818 (SIC) FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL IS FROM THIS POINT HERE, (INDICATING). Q: SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL AND THEN GUEST HOUSE THAT FOLLOWS IT? THAT IS NOT THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, HE IS MISREADING WHAT THE WITNESS IS -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: COULD WE PUT UP ON THE ELMO THE ENTRY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT? OKAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL"? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. IT DOESN'T SAY "OF." MR. SCHECK: I THINK THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Q: YOU SEE THE ENTRY WHERE IT SAYS "LOCATION OF ITEM"? A: YES, I DO. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DOESN'T IT READ ACROSS THE TOP LINE "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF SOUTH WALL"? A: IT DOES STATE THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US NOW IS THAT THE WEST WALL YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS NOT THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE? A: THE WEST WALL I'M REFERRING TO IS THIS WALL HERE, (INDICATING). Q: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: INDICATING THE WALL -- EXCUSE ME. INDICATING THE WALL OF THE GARAGE ON PEOPLE'S 169. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WAS ABOUT TO INDICATE THAT. Q: SO THE WEST WALL THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE REFERRING TO IN THAT ENTRY WAS THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE; NOT THE GUEST HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND IF ONE WERE TO READ JUST LITERALLY WHAT IT SAYS THERE, "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE" AND START MEASURING FROM THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT ENTRY, AN INCORRECT LOCATION FOR WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOTES AND THAT IS WHY I PREPARE A PROPERTY REPORT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT IS -- IF ONE WERE TO LITERALLY READ IT, THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT IDENTIFICATION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS THERE. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. A FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHILE WE ARE HERE. Q: NOW, IF ONE GOES ON A LINE FROM WHERE YOU LAST FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, ALONG THIS SOUTH WALL, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS -- THE COURT: COUNSEL, IS THERE A WALL THERE? MR. SCHECK: WELL, IT IS ACTUALLY SHRUBBERY, THANK YOU. Q: ALONG THIS SHRUBBERY ON A LINE TO THE SOUTH WALKWAY, IS THAT A DRIVEWAY AREA? A: YES, IT IS. Q: ON THAT LINE YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: RIGHT? A: FROM APPROXIMATELY THIS POINT TO THIS POINT, I FOUND NO RED STAINS IN THIS LOWER AREA. Q: NO RED STAINS IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING), CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG: FOR THE RECORD PERHAPS -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS THE AREA FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO WHERE THE PINK ENDS ON PEOPLE'S 169? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS FROM THE "Y" IN THE WORD "DRIVEWAY" OVER TO THE RIGHT-HAND -- ON THIS EXHIBIT -- THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF WHERE THE PINK ENDS, AND THEN I THINK HE ALSO POINTED TO A POINT THAT IS JUST ABOVE THE "Y" IN WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A TRIANGLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT -- WHAT MR. GOLDBERG IS SAYING CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE IS NOW AN AREA THAT IS IN YELLOW, OKAY? A: YES. Q: NOW, AS ONE WALKS DOWN IN THE AREA, THAT IS YELLOW ON PEOPLE'S 169, THERE IS ABOUT FOUR STEPS? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THERE IS A CEMENT AREA, CEMENT WALKWAY AREA? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ON JUNE 13TH THERE WERE MUCH FEWER LEAVES IN THAT CEMENT WALKWAY AREA THAN THERE WAS IN THE NARROWER WALKWAY AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO AND THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED, RIGHT? A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHICH HAD MORE -- MORE LEAVES. I DO RECALL THERE WAS AREAS THAT HAD A LOT OF LEAVES AND AREAS THAT HAD LESS LEAVES, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE A NOTE OF IT. Q: WELL, IN TERMS OF THE -- THERE WERE MORE TREES OVERHANGING THE AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO NOW THAT STARTS WITH -- WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THIS POINT, (INDICATING)? HOW DO YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT? DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT -- WHAT DEMARCATION DO YOU WANT TO USE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THIS POINT, I'M OVER HERE, THAT IS JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE CALL OUT BOX THAT IS 14? A: I -- Q: THAT IS WHERE THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IS, ELECTRICAL DOOR? A: YEAH. THERE IS SOME KIND OF BOX. Q: ALL RIGHT. FROM THE ELECTRICAL DOOR BOX THERE IS A NARROW AREA, CORRECT? A: YES, IT IS. Q: THERE IS MORE TREES OVERHANGING THAT AREA? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND THERE WERE MORE LEAVES THERE, WEREN'T THERE, ON JUNE 13TH, THAN THERE WAS FROM THE CEMENT AREA THAT STARTS WITH THE GARAGE AND GOES UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE ELECTRICAL BOX IS? A: I -- AGAIN, I CAN'T RECALL THE AMOUNT OF LEAVES. Q: AND YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS FROM THE POINT WHERE THE YELLOW BEGINS ON THE GARAGE AT -- ON PEOPLE'S 169 TO THE POINT WHERE YOU FOUND THE GLOVE? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NONE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: NO RED STAINS? A: ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF? Q: ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND UMM, IN THE AREA, UMM, OF THE AIR CONDITIONER, UMM, THERE IS A WALL? A: THERE IS A WALL, YES. Q: AND IT IS MADE OF A STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL IS THE KIND OF THING WHERE IF YOU BRUSH AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, IF ONE BRUSHES AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, THREADS OR FIBERS CAN GET STUCK TO IT? A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. Q: OR YOU CAN GET AN ABRASION IF ONE WERE TO BANG UP AGAINST IT WITH BARE SKIN, THAT KIND OF STUCCO CAN CAUSE AN ABRASION ON ONE'S HAND? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU FOUND NO HAIR OR FIBER ON THE STUCCO WALL AREA NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER ON JUNE 13TH? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU EXAMINED THE FENCE IN THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED? A: YES, I DID. Q: YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT FENCE, NO HAIR OR FIBERS ON THAT FENCE? A: I DID NOT SEE ANY. Q: YOU DID NOT SEE ANY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE GONE OVER THAT FENCE? A: YES. Q: AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE BANGED INTO THAT WALL? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THAT STUCCO WALL? A: I LOOKED -- I DID LOOK AT THE WALL, YES. Q: SO YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY BECAUSE THE DETECTIVES WERE INSTRUCTING YOU TO DO SO? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS A COMPOUND QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL, IT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT AREA -- WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY THE DETECTIVES TO EXAMINE THAT AREA CAREFULLY? A: YES. Q: AND YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT STUCCO WALL? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: I THINK WE ARE FINISHED WITH THIS DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OR NOT. Q: SO YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DEW ON THE LAWN OR WATER FROM THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM? A: THAT'S CORRECT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU INDICATED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WENT BACK AND RECOVERED THE GLOVE, ITEM NO. 9? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WAS DOING ALL THIS INVESTIGATING ON THE WALKWAY LEADING UP TO ITEM NO. 9? MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: INVESTIGATION IN WHAT SENSE? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR RED STAINS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR FIBERS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR CLUES ALONG THE SOUTH WALKWAY LEADING UP TO THE GLOVE? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION, WHO ACCOMPANIED YOU? A: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ACCOMPANIED ME AT DIFFERENT TIMES. Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU GO THERE? A: APPROXIMATELY FOUR, FOUR THAT I CAN REMEMBER. Q: WHO WAS THERE THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT? A: THE FIRST TIME WAS WITH MY -- WAS WITH THE WALK-THROUGH AND I DON'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO WERE BOTH AT THAT WALK-THROUGH AT THAT TIME OR JUST DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR JUST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT ONE OF THE DETECTIVES DID ESCORT ME BACK THERE ON MY WALK-THROUGH. Q: THIS WAS ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU GOT TO THE SCENE? A: MAYBE FIVE MINUTES INTO THE SCENE. Q: AND WAS MISS MAZZOLA WITH YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL IF SHE WAS WITH ME OR NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID YOU THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AREA AGAIN, WALKING TOWARD THE GLOVE? A: UNTIL THE NEXT TIME I WENT TO THAT AREA? Q: YEAH. A: I DON'T HAVE A -- Q: ABOUT HOW MANY MINUTES? A: I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD ESTIMATION. Q: WHO WENT WITH YOU? A: THE NEXT TIME WAS WITH MISS MAZZOLA. Q: JUST THE TWO OF YOU? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND YOU WERE CAREFULLY WALKING DOWN THAT PATH LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND AT THAT TIME WERE YOU TAKING MEASUREMENTS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAD NOT -- HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE? A: WITHIN FEET -- FEET OF IT. Q: HOW MANY? A: ONE OR TWO OR THREE. Q: AND HAD YOU NOTICED THE BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO. 10? A: I MAY HAVE SEEN IT, BUT I DIDN'T IDENTIFY IT AS BEING RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TELL US ABOUT THE THIRD TIME YOU WENT. A: THE THIRD TIME I WENT WAS WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Q: AND WHO WAS THAT? MR. ROKAHR? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND WHEN HE WAS WALKING DOWN THAT PATH, DID HE BANG INTO THE AIR CONDITIONER? A: NO. Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS MR. ROKAHR WENT WITH YOU AND YOU DIRECTED HIM TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY? A: YES. Q: AND THEN THE FOURTH TIME YOU WENT THERE, YOU WENT WITH WHOM? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS MYSELF. I WENT BY MYSELF AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE WALKING DOWN THE SOUTH WALKWAY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WALKING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE? A: THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER IT. Q: THE TWO OF YOU WERE WALKING PARALLEL? A: WELL, WE ENDED UP AT THE OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE FENCE, YES. Q: AND THEN IT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT POINTED OUT THIS BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE? A: I THINK HE HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE WAS ONE BEFORE THAT POINT AND HE WENT OVER TO -- AT THAT POINT TO HELP ME COLLECT IT SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND. Q: WAIT A SECOND. YOU ARE THE CRIMINALIST, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN VOLUNTEERED, HE RUSHED DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY -- HE WALKED DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY, RIGHT? A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE RUSHED OR WALKED. Q: ALL RIGHT. HE WAS THE FELLOW THAT WENT DOWN THERE AND HE PICKED UP THE EVIDENCE? A: AT MY REQUEST. Q: WHAT ABOUT MISS MAZZOLA? YOU COULDN'T USE HER? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION MISS MAZZOLA WAS PICKING UP THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, 7 -- OR THE RED STAINS 7 AND 8 AT THAT TIME. Q: WELL, DID YOU PERFORM ANY MEASUREMENTS AT THAT POINT ON THE -- THAT BLUE ITEM, THAT BLUE PLASTIC ITEM? A: YES. Q: WELL, DID YOU MEASURE IT -- HOW DID YOU DO THAT? YOU DID IT WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: THE PLASTIC THING -- CONTAINER WAS ALMOST PARALLEL TO THE GLOVE, SO I MADE AN ESTIMATE AS TO ITS LOCATION. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T GO AROUND THE FENCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT ANYTHING AROUND THAT PLASTIC CONTAINER? YOU LEFT THAT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: YES, I DID. Q: BUT IT IS YOUR JOB, I GUESS -- WELL, ISN'T IT YOUR JOB AS THE CRIMINALIST TO BE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: YOU ARE THE ONE IN CHARGE OF GATHERING THE EVIDENCE? A: I AM IN CHARGE OF GATHERING EVIDENCE. Q: AND DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WEAR ANY RUBBER GLOVES WHEN HE WAS PICKING UP THAT BLUE PLASTIC BAG? A: I BELIEVE HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD THAT I ALSO USE SOMETIMES. Q: WELL, YOU ARE SAYING HE DIDN'T HAVE GLOVES? A: I'M SAYING HE USED A SCOOP METHOD. Q: WELL, IN USING THE SCOOP METHOD, DO YOU KNOW IF HE HAD GLOVES? A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD GLOVES. I DON'T THINK HE DID. Q: DO YOU KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? A: NO, I DON'T. I DON'T THINK HE DID, THOUGH. Q: WAIT A SECOND. YOU DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? A: I'M NOT SURE -- Q: YOU DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER HE HAD GLOVES OR NOT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR A BREAK. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO BE HERE AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, 1:30. (AT 12:02 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 1:40 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 FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD ON THE SIMPSON MATTER. ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHAT ABOUT BEFORE WE ASK THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? COUNSEL, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 3:15 FOR OUR BREAK, CHANGE COURT REPORTERS, GO TO 4:00 AND THEN TAKE UP THE MOTION REGARDING THE CORONER'S REPORTS AT ABOUT 4:10. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DENNIS FUNG IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG. THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND, MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK: Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: MR. FUNG, WHEN WE LEFT, YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTING ITEM NO. 10. I THINK YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, DID YOU NOT, THAT HE TRANSFERRED, THAT HE HANDED THAT TO YOU OVER THE FENCE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW IS NOT VERY CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD OR GLOVES? MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD GLOVES? A: NO. Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD? A: NO. Q: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT HE PICKED THIS ITEM UP AND HE HANDED IT TO YOU OVER THAT FENCE? IS THAT HOW IT HAPPENED OR DO YOU RECALL? A: IT WAS IN A COIN ENVELOPE AND HE HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE LITTLE COIN ENVELOPES? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S A LITTLE COIN ENVELOPE, WOULD IT NOT BE DIFFICULT TO BE USING THE SCOOP METHOD WITH THE COIN ENVELOPE? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ORDINARILY, WOULD YOU USE THE SCOOP METHOD WITH ONE OF THOSE SMALL COIN ENVELOPES? A: I'VE DONE IT BEFORE. Q: IT'S FAIRLY DIFFICULT, ISN'T IT, AS OPPOSED TO A LARGE PAPER BAG? A: NO. Q: NO? A: IT IS MORE DIFFICULT, BUT IT'S NOT A LOT MORE DIFFICULT. Q: OKAY. SO IT'S MORE DIFFICULT? A: A LITTLE BIT, YES. Q: OKAY. AND THIS -- MR. SCHECK: ASK THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1073. MR. SCHECK: 1073. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE 1073. (DEFT'S 1073 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF ITEM NO. 10 AS YOU SAW IT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH? A: YES. MR. SCHECK: MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, CAN YOU PULL BACK FROM THAT A LITTLE BIT? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT ITEM NO. 10, ONE WOULD -- TO USE THE SCOOP METHOD THERE, YOU MIGHT GET SOME LEAVES OR DEBRIS INTO THE COIN ENVELOPE? A: PERHAPS. Q: PERHAPS? DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S LIKELY GIVEN ITS LOCATION? A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO. Q: NO? AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THERE ARE NO LEAVES IN THAT COIN ENVELOPE, ARE THERE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YEAH, THERE ARE NO LEAVES IN THERE, RIGHT. Q: SO IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE TO HAVE USED GLOVES AND PICKED THAT UP AND PUT IT INTO THE COIN ENVELOPE, IT WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE LEAVES IN IT; WOULDN'T YOU THINK? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. YOU ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT WHAT TIME? A: I ARRIVED THERE AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE YOU GOT THERE, STILL -- DID IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT A STILL PHOTOGRAPHER HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE SCENE AND HAD TAKEN PICTURES? A: YES. Q: AND THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE? A: THERE WAS A LOT OF NEWS MEDIA WITH VIDEO CAMERAS. Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE TAPES; HAVE YOU NOT, SIR? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVE REVIEWED THEM VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY? A: I'VE REVIEWED THEM. Q: ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES? A: ONCE, TWICE. Q: ONCE, TWICE? WITH THE -- ANY MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM? A: YES. Q: AND WHO WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS MR. GOLDBERG. Q: ANYONE ELSE? A: HE'S THE ONLY ONE I RECALL BEING THERE. Q: AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO THAT? A: ONCE. Q: AND ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID IT TAKE YOU? A: TOOK AWHILE. I DON'T REMEMBER. MAYBE THREE HOURS. I DON'T RECALL. Q: AND YOU STUDIED THEM CAREFULLY; DID YOU NOT? A: WE LOOKED AT THEM. Q: AND INCIDENTALLY, BEFORE YOU CAME AND TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, DID YOU UNDERGO A NUMBER OF PREPARATION SESSIONS? A: YES. I MET WITH MR. GOLDBERG A FEW TIMES. Q: ABOUT HOW MANY? A: MORE THAN 10. Q: MORE THAN 10? A: YES. Q: AND ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU -- DID EACH OF THESE SESSIONS TAKE IF YOU RECALL? A: THEY VARIED ANYWHERE FROM FIVE MINUTES TO THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS. Q: AND DID YOU EVER HAVE A SESSION WHERE PEOPLE WERE BROUGHT IN THAT CROSS-EXAMINED YOU IN PREPARATION? A: NO. Q: NOW, THERE ARE VIDEO CAMERAS AVAILABLE AT THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION; ARE THERE NOT? A: YES, THERE ARE. Q: AND ON OCCASION, THESE VIDEO CAMERAS ARE USED TO TAKE VIDEOTAPES OF CRIME SCENES? A: ON OCCASION, YES. Q: AND THAT IS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CRIMINALIST? A: NO. USUALLY THAT'S DONE AT THE REQUEST OF A DETECTIVE. Q: DETECTIVE. SOMETIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CRIMINALIST? A: I HAVE NEVER HAD OCCASION TO REQUEST ONE. Q: BUT SOMETIMES DETECTIVES HAVE? A: YES. Q: AND IF ONE TAKES A VIDEO CAMERA TO A CRIME SCENE, THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES TO USING IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT, THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THERE MAY BE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE ADVANTAGE -- ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES IS THAT YOU CAN PAN THE ENTIRE SCENE IN ONE CONTINUOUS SWEEPING SHOT TO SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE LIES? A: THAT WOULD BE ONE ADVANTAGE, YES. Q: AND THAT'S -- IT CUTS DOWN ON THE SELECTIVITY THAT ONE GETS WHEN YOU TAKE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SELECTIVITY? Q: WELL, WHEN ONE CHOOSES TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH AT A CERTAIN ANGLE, A STILL PHOTOGRAPH, ONE IS MAKING A SELECTION ABOUT THE ANGLE AT WHICH THE PICTURE IS TAKEN? A: YES. Q: AND ORDINARILY WHEN YOU DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHERS AT A CRIME SCENE, YOU MAKE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT ANGLES TO TAKE TO ILLUSTRATE THE EVIDENCE WELL? A: I WILL GIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS THE INSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE OVERALLS OF THE CRIME SCENE, AND THEN AFTER THAT IS DONE, THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC SHOTS THAT I WILL DIRECT THEM TO TAKE. Q: BUT AN ADVANTAGE OF VIDEO IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE AN OVERALL OF THE CRIME SCENE WITH A VIDEO, ONE GETS MORE THAN IF YOU TAKE AN OVER -- YOU TAKE A SERIES OF STILL SHOTS? A: THAT'S POSSIBLE. MAY NOT BE -- NOT IN ALL CASES THOUGH. Q: WELL, IF DONE WELL WITH A VIDEO, WOULDN'T THAT ORDINARILY BE TRUE IN YOUR JUDGMENT? A: IF DONE WELL WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, THAT'S JUST AS GOOD. Q: YOU THINK IT'S JUST AS GOOD TO DO A SERIES OF STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AS OPPOSED TO A VIDEO? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS WELL. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A CRIMINALIST, WHETHER OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS ROUTINELY USE VIDEOTAPES FOR CRIME SCENES? A: I'VE HEARD IT MENTIONED THAT SOME PEOPLE OR SOME JURISDICTIONS DO USE THEM ON OCCASION. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY USE THEM ON A ROUTINE BASIS THOUGH. Q: WELL, THERE WAS A VIDEO USED IN THIS CASE, WASN'T THERE? A: YES, THERE WAS. Q: THAT THAT VIDEO WAS A VIDEOTAPE TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: THAT WAS A VIDEOTAPE OR AT LEAST ONE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO TAKE SHOTS OF THE INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF A VIDEO WAS TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13 OF THE INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW IF ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THAT VIDEOTAPE WAS TO PROTECT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM CIVIL LIABILITY? A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE VIDEO. Q: AND -- BUT THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA TO RECORD THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE? A: I DID NOT OBSERVE ONE. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS WHAT TIME? 10:15? A: YES. Q: AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD HEARD OR YOU BELIEVED AT THAT TIME THAT THE VICTIMS WERE FIRST DISCOVERED SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS? A: YES. Q: SO BY THE -- EXCUSE ME. BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 10 HOURS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM WHEN THE BODIES WERE FIRST FOUND? A: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q: AND ISN'T THAT, MR. FUNG, FAIRLY LATE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS FOR CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE? A: I HAVE ARRIVED AT CRIME SCENES WHEN THE BODIES ARE MONTHS OLD. Q: WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE NOBODY FOUND THEM FOR MONTHS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: BUT WHEN YOU GET A HOMICIDE CALL, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU TRY TO GET TO THE SCENE WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE CALL? A: THAT'S OUR -- THAT'S OUR GOAL FOR OUR RESPONSE TIME, YES. Q: AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE CRIMINALISTS AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE ASKED THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE FIFTH TIME. MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST FOUNDATIONALLY LEADING TO SOMETHING ELSE. THE COURT: WELL, LET'S GET THERE. THE WITNESS: IT'S PREFERABLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU HAVE OBSERVED PHOTOGRAPHS IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT WERE TAKEN BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE? A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? Q: HAVE YOU LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU ARRIVED? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THOSE IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DO CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. MISSTATES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER TO RECONSTRUCT THE CRIME SCENE THAT YOU FOUND AT BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IS CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION? I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS -- A: RECONSTRUCTION -- CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IS USING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A SCENARIO AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED. Q: AND IN DOING THAT -- YOU DID THAT IN THIS CASE, TRIED TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE? A: ONLY IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION. Q: BUT YOU TRIED? A: IN A LIMITED FASHION. Q: AND YOU PARTICIPATED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DO SO? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND OTHER EXPERTS HAVE COME AND DISCUSSED THE CRIME SCENE AS YOU FOUND IT AT BUNDY WITH YOU IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO DO RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE? A: YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR ONE MOMENT ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH? THE COURT: DO YOU NEED THE REPORTER? MR. SCHECK: YES, I THINK SO. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH WHICH I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE HAVE VARIOUS DIFFERENT FORMS OF IT THAT THE PEOPLE PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED. THE COURT: YEAH. THIS IS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. SCHECK: POINTING AT THE GLOVE. THE COURT: POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND PERHAPS THE SKI CAP AND BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AS PRESENT IN THE RIGHT -- LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. MR. SCHECK: YES. FROM MY READING OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, I THINK THAT MR. FUNG HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DISPLAYED THIS PICTURE, HAD BEEN SHOWN THIS PICTURE OR ONE OF THE VERSIONS OF IT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SHOW THIS PICTURE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. HARRIS TO FOCUS IN, USING THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, ON ONE PART OF IT THAT DOESN'T -- AND CROP OUT THE PICTURE OF HER BODY, AND THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO RIGHT NOW. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO IDEA FOR WHAT PURPOSE MR. SCHECK WANTS TO USE IT, BUT IF HE IS GOING TO BE ASKING THE WITNESS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE RECOGNIZES IT, IT COULD BE VERY MISLEADING TO THE WITNESS IF HE DOESN'T SEE THE PICTURE, PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICTIM. MR. SCHECK: LET ME DO THIS. LET ME SHOW THE WITNESS THE ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPH AND THEN CROP OFF THE VICTIM. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, YOU CAN CUT THE FEED. THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OTHER PICTURE WE COULD GET IF YOU WANT. MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE ONE I HAVE TO USE FOR THIS FIRST SHOT, AND WE'VE WORKED IT OUT WITH MR. HARRIS. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, JUST ONE MORE STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A LEGAL OBJECTION, BUT MISS CLARK TELLS ME THIS SCENE IS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT WOULD PREFER THEM TO REFER TO THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MARKED. I MEAN, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S DISCRETIONARY WITH THE COURT. THE COURT: I THINK IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO FISH IT OUT, FIND IT. SO LET'S USE THIS ONE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) MR. SCHECK: NEW YORKERS, WE TALK FAST, WE MOVE FAST. THE COURT: NOT FAST ENOUGH. MR. SCHECK: NOT FAST ENOUGH, I KNOW. I'M TRYING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE DISREGARD ANY BANTER. ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS PHOTOGRAPH DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER AND SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS. MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. COUNSEL, ANY COUNSEL WHO'S QUESTIONING THE WITNESS AND OPPOSING COUNSEL CAN APPROACH THE WITNESS WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE? A: NO, I HAVE NOT. Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE OR CLOSE-UP SHOT OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH OR ANY VERSION OF IT. Q: MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER OBSERVED A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE AND ENVELOPE AT BUNDY WITH A PICTURE OF SOMEBODY POINTING AT IT? A: NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION. Q: MR. FUNG, YOU RECALL TESTIFYING AT THE GRAND JURY ON JUNE 22ND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU RECALL BEING ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BROWN MEN'S LEATHER GLOVE THAT YOU OBSERVED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PICTURES OF THAT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I'M AT LINE 8, PAGE 337. "QUESTION: WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS A BROWN MEN'S --" MR. GOLDBERG: CAN I HAVE A MOMENT? MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT? (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. SCHECK: 377. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: "QUESTION:" MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT? (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT HAS ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT, BUT I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. THE COURT: OVER AT SIDEBAR WITH THE REPORTER AND THE TRANSCRIPT. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THIS, LET ME TRY ONE OTHER THING THAT MAYBE CAN AVOID THIS PROBLEM. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1074. (DEFT'S 1074 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH? A: I'VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS LIKE IT, BUT I DON'T RECALL IF I'VE SEEN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT INCLUDED A PERSON POINTING AT IT? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE GRAND JURY PAGES. WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS -- MR. GOLDBERG: NOW CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY INDICATES HERE MR. FUNG WAS SHOWN AN EXHIBIT, ALL RIGHT, PICTURE OF THE GLOVE, PICTURE OF PHOTOGRAPH B, AND THE ANSWER SAYS YES. THE GLOVE I'M REFERRING TO SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, A PERSON IS POINTING TO IT. THERE'S ALSO A GLOVE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND CORNER OF PHOTOGRAPH C. IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. FUNG WAS SHOWN EITHER WHAT IS PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO A GLOVE, OR THE CLOSE-UP SHOT THAT I THINK HAS JUST BEEN MARKED. THE COURT: FOR THIS TO BE INCONSISTENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND JURY. MR. SCHECK: I DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND JURY. MAYBE MISS CLARK WILL RECOLLECT -- I'M NOT SURE THIS OBJECTION IS REALLY IN GOOD FAITH UNLESS THEY HAVE THOSE PICTURES. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THERE'S NO OTHER PICTURE IN THIS CASE OF DETECTIVE -- ANYONE POINTING AT THE GLOVE. THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT, IT'S GOING TO SAY "EXHIBIT B," WHICH IS NOT HERE. MR. SCHECK: WELL, THE TRANSCRIPT REFERS TO A PERSON POINTING TO A GLOVE. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT; HAS HE EVER SEEN A PICTURE OF A PERSON POINTING OUT A GLOVE, IF THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, IF THEY SHOWED HIM THE PICTURE, IF THERE IS ANY OTHER PICTURE. THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE HAVE A PRETTY STRICT RULE HERE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE A TRANSCRIPT TO IMPEACH THAT REFERS TO AN EXHIBIT, THAT EXHIBIT HAS TO BE HERE. THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. NOW, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS HERE. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ASK THE CLERK. MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY HERE? THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THEY ARE HERE. WE HAVE TO GET THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS. MR. COCHRAN: ARE THEY HERE? THE COURT: WE'LL ASK MRS. ROBERTSON. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'LL DO IT WITH THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT. MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE WE CAN STIPULATE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: CAN WE STIPULATE. MR. GOLDBERG: PERHAPS, YOUR HONOR, THAT DIDN'T REALLY GO TO THE GRAVAMEN OF MY OBJECTION. THE REASON -- THE BASIC REASON WHY I WAS OBJECTING WAS THAT WHAT THE WITNESS SAID WAS -- HE WAS ASKED TWO QUESTIONS -- WAS, HE MAY HAVE SEEN SOME VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND HE DOESN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS THAT ONE. THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. MR. GOLDBERG: SO I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS BEING INCONSISTENT. THE COURT: BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPH HE WAS SHOWN. MR. SCHECK: MAY I PROCEED IN THIS FASHION BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET ON WITH IT. THE COURT: PLEASE. MR. SCHECK: THE FOCUS OF MY EXAMINATION IS GOING TO BE ITEMS THAT ARE HERE, INCLUDING THIS PIECE OF PAPER. I WILL USE THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT AND CUT OFF THE BODY. THE COURT: YOU DON'T NEED TO CUT OFF THE BODY BECAUSE I'M NOT LETTING IT OUT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW IT TO THE JURY. MR. SCHECK: WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING FOR IS PERMISSION TO SHOW THIS PHOTOGRAPH FOCUSING ON THE AREA ON THE ELMO. THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM THOUGH. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS, I THINK THEY NEED TO SEE THE FULL PHOTOGRAPH IS MY POINT. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU USE THE WHOLE PHOTOGRAPH. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, I WOULD PREFER -- THE COURT: YOU DO IT HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT -- MR. SCHECK: NO, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE UP AT THE BENCH HERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN UNFAIR PRESENTATION ON THE OTHER HAND, A 352 PROBLEM. THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF ALL YOU'RE DOING IS GOING AFTER, WHAT IS THIS, WHY WAS IT COLLECTED, BE MY GUEST. MR. SCHECK: THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I WANT TO EXHIBIT THAT WITHOUT SHOWING HER BODY. THE COURT: SHOW THE ORIGINAL TO HIM FIRST, AND THEN ON THE ELMO, CUT IT OFF. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, DID THE COURT RULE ON MY -- THE COURT: YEAH. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT. MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE A REQUEST TO HAVE THE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE TO SIGN AN ORDER. SEE, THE GRAND JURY IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY. WE CAN DO THAT LATER. I AM TELLING YOU, WE NEED A HALF DAY'S NOTICE BEFORE GETTING THEIR EXHIBITS AND WE HAVE TO INDIVIDUALLY ORDER EACH ONE. MR. SCHECK: I ONLY WANT THE ONES INDICATED HERE. THIS IS MY NOTICE. THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, YOU NEED TO LET THE CLERK KNOW. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE TRY THIS WITH PEOPLE'S 55. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE? A: BEFORE TODAY? Q: YES. A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. I DO RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION THOUGH. Q: RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION AS BEING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND BASED ON OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAY YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WOULD IT BE YOUR VIEW THAT THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE BUNDY GLOVE? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. MR. SCHECK: BASED ON THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS HE SAYS HE IS AWARE OF. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I CAN'T MAKE OUT IF THAT'S DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THERE OR NOT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BUT YOU SEE IT AS SOME -- INDIVIDUAL POINTING AT THAT GLOVE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I TAKE IT JUST LOOKING AT THE -- AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AS IT'S DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THIS IS NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FORM, THIS CRIME SCENE IS NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT ON JUNE 13TH? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: OKAY. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I ASK PERMISSION FOR MR. HARRIS TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO AND -- THE COURT: OKAY. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. WE NEED TO -- MR. SCHECK: -- CUT THE FEED. THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU WANT TO WARN ANY FAMILY MEMBERS? MR. SCHECK: WELL, WE'RE GOING TO -- WE'RE TRYING TO-- HE'S GOING TO FOCUS IN ON A SEGMENT OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH. THE COURT: MUCH AS I TRUST MR. HARRIS, JUST AS A FOREWARNING. MR. SCHECK: I KNOW HE'LL DO THIS RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN -- SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU SEE A PIECE OF PAPER IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU DID NOT SEE WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH? A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. Q: YOU DON'T? A: I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR YOU WANT ME TO -- Q: YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO USE THE TELESTRATOR. ACTUALLY I THINK I'M BETTER OFF HAVING MR. HARRIS USE IT. THE COURT: HAVE HIM PUT THE ARROW AT THE ITEM YOU'RE DIRECTING MR. FUNG TO. MR. SCHECK: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE WHERE THE ARROW IS POINTING TO, MR. FUNG? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A PIECE OF PAPER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, DID YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I SAW IT OR NOT. Q: DID YOU RECOVER THAT PIECE OF PAPER? A: NO. Q: GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT PIECE OF PAPER IN RELATION TO THE CRIME SCENE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MIGHT HAVE SOME RELEVANCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, CALLS FOR -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN YOUR VIEW AS A CRIMINALIST, IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU HAVE COLLECTED IT AS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: I MIGHT HAVE. Q: MIGHT HAVE? A: YES. Q: WELL, THAT PIECE OF PAPER IS CLOSE TO THE ENVELOPE? A: YES. Q: IT IS CLOSE TO THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: THAT IS THE -- WHAT IS BEING OBLITERATED BY THE POST-IT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PICTURE, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT, WOULD YOU NOT, BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE THE SHOE IMPRESSION ON IT OF ONE OF THE ASSAILANTS? A: IF I HAD SEEN -- IF -- ASSUMING THAT I HAD SEEN THE PAPER, I WOULD HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LIKELY TO HAVE HAD SOME TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU -- IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE -- IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER, YOU WOULD HAVE EXAMINED IT TO SEE IF IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: POSSIBLY? A: FOR POSSIBLE SHOE IMPRESSIONS. Q: YOU WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: FOR THAT PURPOSE. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE PURPOSES? A: THAT IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WOULD ALSO WANT TO SEE, IF YOU HAD BEEN ABLE TO, WHETHER OR NOT THAT PIECE OF PAPER HAD ANY WRITING ON IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF BASIC CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION, WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT PIECE OF PAPER COULD HAVE BEEN RIPPED OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE KILLER? A: POSSIBLY. Q: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE IN YOUR JUDGMENT THAT PIECE OF PAPER FOR FINGERPRINTS? A: YES. IN THE STATE THAT IT APPEARS IN THE PICTURE, YES. Q: AND FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, SIR, IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO COLLECT THAT PIECE OF PAPER? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT BECAUSE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION THAT HE SAW IT. MR. SCHECK: HE'S SEEING IT NOW. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SERIOUS MISTAKE? A: COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE. MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: NO. HE'S ANSWERED THE QUESTION. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'VE ADMITTED YES, IT'S A MISTAKE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, MR. FUNG, THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THIS CRIME SCENE AND SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHERE IT WAS LOCATED, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT IT WITH GREAT CARE? ANY QUESTION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS THE WITNESS NEEDS TO LOOK AT A PHOTOGRAPH WITH BETTER RESOLUTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. SCHECK: WELL, I HAD ONE. THE WITNESS: CAN I ANSWER? THE COURT: ANSWER. THE WITNESS: LOOKING AT THE PICTURE AND THE CONDITION OF THE PAPER, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'RE SAYING PROBABLY. MY QUESTION TO YOU, IS THERE ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN YOUR MIND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THAT PIECE OF PAPER IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE TO SEE IT? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T KNOW? THE COURT: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE CRIME SCENE LATER, MR. FUNG, YOU OBSERVED A BONITA ECUADOR LABEL; DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT BONITA ECUADOR LABEL WAS? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR HIM TO SEE THE REST OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. MS. CLARK: MATTER OF FACT, THIS PHOTOGRAPH DOESN'T SHOW THAT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. CAN YOU TELL FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THAT LABEL WAS? THE WITNESS: IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU GIVE US A GENERAL SENSE OF WHERE IT WAS LOCATED? A: IT WAS LOCATED SOMEPLACE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE WALKWAY. Q: MR. HARRIS HAS A ROVING ARROW, AND PERHAPS YOU COULD DIRECT IT. A: LOWER, OVER MORE TO THE RIGHT. IN THAT AREA SOMEPLACE (INDICATING). MR. SCHECK: OKAY. CAN WE MAKE A MARK? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT IS THE LOCATION WHERE YOU FOUND THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL? A: AROUND THERE, YES. Q: AND YOU COLLECTED THAT? A: YES. Q: YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: I COLLECTED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE LANGE. Q: SO DETECTIVE LANGE THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: DID YOU AGREE WITH HIS JUDGMENT? A: I DIDN'T QUESTION IT. Q: YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, MR. FUNG, YOU DON'T QUESTION THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVES, DO YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S A LITTLE OVERBROAD. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU PICKED UP THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL, BUT YOU'RE TELLING US YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE PIECE OF PAPER IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. I GUESS WE'LL PRINT THAT OUT AND MARK THIS -- MAYBE -- SHOULD WE PUT A "BE" OVER THAT LITTLE SPOT AS BONITA ECUADOR? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF THE TELESTRATOR DOES THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD TO INDICATE WHAT SECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IS BLOCKED OFF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DONE ONCE THEY PRINT IT OUT. MR. SCHECK: IT WILL BE ON THE PRINT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, WHAT IS TRACE EVIDENCE? THE COURT: I AM SORRY. EXCUSE ME. WE NEED TO MARK THIS. WHY DON'T WE -- SINCE IT IS A COPY OF THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT, LET'S MAKE THIS 55-A. 55-B? ALL RIGHT. 55-B. THE CLERK: A AND B. THE COURT: A AND B? GREAT. ALL RIGHT. (PEO'S 55-A AND 55-B FOR ID = PRINT OF PHOTO) THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT IS TRACE EVIDENCE? HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT TERM? A: TRACE EVIDENCE -- EXAMPLES OF TRACE EVIDENCE ARE HAIR, FIBER, PAINT, CHIPS OF GLASS, MINERAL SOIL, THAT TYPE OF THING. Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS EVIDENCE OCCURRING IN SIZES SO SMALL THAT IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN TWO SURFACES WITHOUT BEING NOTICED? A: SOME FORMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE, YES? Q: MANY FORMS? A: YES. Q: HAIRS? A: YES. Q: FIBERS? A: YES. Q: AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE "TRANSFER EVIDENCE"? A: I'VE HEARD THE TERM, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DEFINITION. I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRANSFER EVIDENCE STRICTLY SPEAKING IS EVIDENCE WHICH IS EXCHANGED AS A RESULT OF CONTACT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS? A: THAT CAN BE ONE DEFINITION, YES. Q: UH-HUH. AND TRACE EVIDENCE, SMALL HAIRS AND FIBERS, CAN OFTEN BE TRANSFER EVIDENCE AS WELL. IN OTHER WORDS -- A: YES. Q: YES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A CRIMINALIST IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I AM CONCERNED WITH TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU APPROACH A CRIME SCENE, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT IS FRAGILE? A: YES. Q: AND BECAUSE IT CAN BE EASILY TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OBJECT TO THE OTHER IF THE CRIMINALIST OR OTHERS ON THE SCENE ARE NOT CAREFUL? A: YES. Q: AND THERE IS SOMETHING KNOWN AS SECONDARY TRANSFER; IS THERE NOT? A: I HAVE HEARD THAT TERM ALSO. Q: AND WOULD SECONDARY TRANSFER REFER TO A SITUATION WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE COULD GET ON A PERSON'S CLOTHING OR LET'S SAY A TOWEL, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER LOCATION AND FALL OFF ON ANOTHER OBJECT OF EVIDENCE? THAT WOULD BE A SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: YES. Q: AND AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT NOT CONTAMINATING A CRIME SCENE WITH TRACE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF A SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: IF IT IS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE, YES. Q: THIS WAS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANT? A: CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CRIME SCENE WERE IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: THE SMALL AREA AT BUNDY WHERE THE TWO VICTIMS WERE FOUND, THAT AREA WAS ONE OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO TRACE EVIDENCE? A: AREAS OF THAT -- AREAS WITHIN WHAT YOU DESCRIBED WERE VERY IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT? A: VERY. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE CLOTHES OF THE VICTIMS? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT KNIT HAT? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ALL THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS THAT SURROUNDED THE VICTIMS IN THAT VERY SMALL ENCLOSED CRIME SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TEND TO BE MORE USEFUL FOR TRACE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THESE WERE ITEMS THAT YOU ANTICIPATED AS SOON AS YOU GOT THERE WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, THE OBJECTS SURROUNDING THE VICTIMS, AS SOON AS YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND SAW ALL OF THAT, YOU KNEW THESE OBJECTS WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF COLLECTING THEM FOR TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AS TO THE OBJECTS. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHEN YOU SAY "OBJECTS ALL AROUND," I MEAN THAT'S WAY TOO BIG. JUST STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS. MR. SCHECK: WE'LL STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, ALL THOSE WERE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS A BLANKET OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T RECALL BEING THERE THAT SOON. WHEN I GOT THERE, THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON WAS BEING PROCESSED. Q: WHERE -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE |