Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Matthew H. Schwartz, Esquire, and Ron Regwan, Esquire, on behalf of Laura Hart McKinny.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Goldberg and Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Counsel, the record should reflect that on Friday evening, August the 18th, the Court, in the presence of counsel, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld for the Defense, and Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Fairtlough on behalf of the Prosecution, in the company of the investigating officers, went to the Bundy crime scene to determine whether or not the conditions were satisfactorily adjusted so that they were substantially similar to the conditions as they were on June the 12th, 1994. And after approximately an hour at the crime scene on Friday evening, after extensive discussion, comparison of photographs, modification of lighting, et cetera, et cetera, the Prosecution chose to withdraw their request for a crime scene view at nighttime. And as a result the Court canceled the viewing that was scheduled for Sunday evening, August the 20th, and that is my recollection of what occurred. Any comment as to that particular issue?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Submitted? I just wanted the record to reflect our activities of Friday evening.

MR. SCHECK: Just so the record is clear, that the Court made every effort to substantially replicate what occurred and the critical factor was the light that was near the gate where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson lay, and once that had been repaired, the decision was made.

THE COURT: All right. The problem being is that the photographs really didn't give us a clear angle or clear appreciation of the angle of that light, and as we discussed on the record last week, photographs are dependent upon the speed of the film, the aperture, the exposure. And so it is hard from the photographs themselves to recreate the lighting conditions as they existed that evening, so there was a Defense objection to begin with and then the Prosecution withdrew their request. All right. Mr. Scheck, anything else on that issue?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. But the Court's concern that the lighting be restored as much as possible to the condition as it was that day was a wise one, because when we did do that, I think it was clear to all parties that there was substantially more illumination on our visit last Friday evening than there was the previous visit, and that was more in keeping with what is depicted in the photograph taken that evening by the police.

THE COURT: Well, you objected, you won, so I guess there is nothing much more to say, is there?

MR. SCHECK: No, no. I just wanted to make the facts clear.

THE COURT: All right. Any comment on that issue on behalf of the People?

MS. CLARK: Only, your Honor, briefly, that the neighbor who lived next door to Ms. Brown indicated that the lighting as it existed on the night--on this last Friday night, was considerably brighter than it had been on the night of June the 12th, and he said, according to his memory, that was not representative. Detective Lange similarly indicated that the lighting no longer represented its condition, that it was considerably brighter on Friday night than it had been.

THE COURT: All right. Since the Court could not substantially recreate the conditions then, I think this is the appropriate decision. All right. This morning the Court directed counsel to confer with regard to the next witness, Defense witness, who is Mr. Ragle is my understanding. And Mr. Goldberg, you are handling that matter?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Did you have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Blasier and Mr. Ragle and discuss the matter you needed to address?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I did. I wanted to address a couple matters before the court before we started, if I may do so.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. 1, your Honor, Mr. Blasier, I believe--and maybe it was a miscommunication--had told me that Mr. Ragle was not going to be testifying to anything that related to the notes that they turned over within the last couple of weeks in discovery. And I believe--

THE COURT: What was the subject matter of Mr. Ragle's notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, they covered a wide range of topics. The only one that is relevant for what I'm about to say is notes as to the August 26, `94, Bronco search which--and Mr. Blasier could probably give us--

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. There are some August the 26th, `94, Bronco notes and that I believe there is another little sketch that was provided from a viewing in April of the Bronco.

THE COURT: April, `95?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor, of this year. And I did not know that he was going to testify to that because of the--excuse me. It looks like the date on that is March 14th of `95. I did not know he was going to testify about these things because Mr. Blasier seemed to indicate to me that he was only going to be talking about things that had to do other than the notes. So there has been, without any question, a discovery violation here in my view. I mean, these notes are old and they were just turned over to us very recently. However, I don't think that I can say in good faith that these particular matters, as I understand Mr. Blasier's offer of proof this morning, would require a delay as a sanction and therefore I'm not requesting that, because they--Mr. Blasier has represented to me that the only thing about the Bronco that Mr. Ragle is going to be testifying to is whether or not he could see certain stains on the door. And if that is true, I can't legitimately say that I need more time to prepare on that particular issue, if that is all his testimony is confined to. However, we would be requesting a sanction for the discovery violation in the way of a jury admonition, and this just came to my attention this morning, so I didn't know that I was going to be addressing your Honor on this. The second issue is as to the scope of Mr. Ragle's testimony. The People have previously argued to the Court in a number of different contexts, citing the Supreme Court case of People versus Kaurish at 52 cal.3D 648. In fact, I think I discussed it a little bit last week in another context with respect to Michele Kestler. The language saying that: "We agree that it is--it was not material to any issue in this case. The defectiveness of the evidence gathering techniques in this case, if any, is not measured in comparison to other purportedly superior techniques." In other words, that the issue when we are talking about forensic evidence and evidence gathering techniques is what techniques were used, were those techniques defective in any way so as to undermine the probative value of the evidence. Looking at other techniques that could have been used or other hypotheticals as to how someone else would have gone about investigating a crime scene, while it may be interesting, does not, in the words of the Supreme Court: "Assist the jury in determining to what extent the method employed actually produced probative elements, nor can it help the jury assign a weight to the evidence." My understanding of Mr. Ragle's testimony is that he wants to testify to how the crime scene should have been processed, techniques that should have been used, techniques that he is critical of and so on. And I just think that that kind of wide-ranging inquiry into the overall competence of the crime scene investigation is not probative, in light of this language, unless it is limited and tied to specifically what effect this could have had on the evidence that we actually have produced in this trial. And I don't think that that is the intent, from my conversation with Mr. Ragle, of this testimony and I don't think that he is intending, if I'm understanding what he told me, to say, okay, the effect of this is that now the DNA results are less reliable because of the following, because he is not an expert in DNA analysis, so just to say, well, I don't like the way that they collect it, without being able to tie it to an effect, in my view and I think in the California Supreme Court's view, is not probative and should not be allowed. So there should be at least some strict limitation on his testimony, if not out and out preclusion of his testimony, depending on exactly how they want to structure the testimony.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. Let me first talk about the purported discovery violation. This is a--this is a one-page--actually a half a page handwritten note about the Bronco when they went out there in March to look at it. There was no testing done. Mr. Ragle did nothing except look. This is not discoverable under Hines or any of the other cases. He doesn't intend to rely on this particular note. All he is going to testify about is that the specks that Dennis Fung identified as the specks of blood that Mark Fuhrman described can't be seen or most of them can't be seen once the door is open.

That is the total of his testimony on that point. This is not even discoverable. I think it was given to them last week anyway. It is less than half a page. As to his testimony in general, umm, they have presented through all their witnesses opinions as to whether this crime scene or these crime scenes were processed appropriately or competently. All Mr. Ragle is here to do is to testify as an expert on crime scene processing techniques, to testify as to whether the techniques used in this case were acceptable or not, were competent or not. That is all. It is rebutting the opinions given by all of their witnesses about the appropriateness of the way they did certain things. Obviously if he testifies that it is inappropriate to put wet swatches in a plastic--in a plastic envelope, it is difficult to express that without expressing what is the right way--how you are supposed to do it, what do you need to do to protect the evidence, to protect the integrity of the evidence. I don't intend to spend a lot of time on techniques that weren't used in this case. The primary purpose of his testimony is the techniques that were used in this case or whether they were acceptable or not from a forensic or investigative standpoint.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, to respond to the last issue first, it may be possible that the Court simply has to rule on a question by question basis as to Mr. Ragle's--the propriety of Mr. Ragle's answers, because I would agree with counsel that at least in the one hypothetical example that he gave, if he is saying it is improper to put items in a plastic bag and what kind of effect that that could have, that that probably would be subject--a proper subject of testimony. But then if you ask the next question, well, what other techniques can be used, it may or may not be crossing the boundary into the territory that I think Kaurish prohibits, so maybe this is more in the nature of simply trying to state what our position is up front. And maybe your Honor does simply have to rule on a question by question basis on those kind of issues.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: As to the discovery violation, if I may, your Honor, and I'm sorry because I did not know this issue was going to come up until literally a few minutes prior to addressing it in court, but on this one page, it is as counsel represented, a page indicating his observations and there is what purports to be a little sketch of the Bronco on it, so it clearly is a report of observations of experts that is discoverable. What I should have brought to the Court's attention that I failed to is that this also indicates that there were twelve photos and they have photographic numbers, and I seem to recall that when this occurred Mr. Ragle did take photographs, and I don't have the photographs of this, so the photographs are a form of documentation of an expert of an observation of evidence.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Goldberg, were you present for this viewing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, and I had no idea what they were up to. I mean, you have to--it is difficult to get into the conspiracy mode sometimes to figure out what is going on, because they were looking at little cracks in doors, so I just thought, these guys are meshugge and didn't know--didn't know what they were up to, so I wasn't particularly watching that carefully what they were observing.

MR. SCHECK: He has got to pronounce that word better.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

MR. SCHECK: Meshuggena.

MR. GOLDBERG: This is Los Angeles. It is an L.A. pronunciation.

THE COURT: Yeah, but for somebody that is a Goldberg, Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, well--

THE COURT: Having grown-up in the Los Feliz district, I have heard that expression before.

MR. GOLDBERG: At any rate, I don't have those photographs.

MR. BLASIER: We don't intend to use any of those photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still documentation of what was done.

MR. BLASIER: It is real evidence. We also are not using any of those photographs.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: They were there. There were several police officers there. They could have taken any pictures they wanted to.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I believe as Mr. Goldberg indicated in his last comment, that the issue of whether or not Mr. Ragle's testimony will go into other techniques and how far the Court will allow is really a question by question issue by issue subject by subject determination that the Court has to make, so I take that as simply that the Prosecution wants the Court to be on notice to expect those issues as they come up. I take that as a premature objection. As to the purported discovery violation, I find no violation since the Prosecution was in fact present at the time these observations were made. They had equal access to those observations, they could have taken their own photographs. They do have the notes in plenty of time to prepare for cross-examination of Mr. Ragle. None of this is, to my recollection, going to be rocket science, so I think we can proceed. All right. Lastly, counsel, I spent some time over the weekend dealing with the offer of proof regarding the Fuhrman tapes, so-called, and I had great difficulty dealing with it. And Mr. Cochran, do you want to address that issue?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I will, your Honor.

THE COURT: Tell me what to expect.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me tell you what to expect. I apologize to the Court. As the Court knows, I was out of town. Did your Honor receive a redacted copy of the original tapes turned over by Messers. Schwartz and Regwan? Is that correct? And I understand that your Honor was not given the first 48 pages; is that correct?

THE COURT: Apparently something was given to me this morning.

MR. COCHRAN: I brought that down for you this morning, and let me see if I can explain the confusion and tell you where we are and how we straightened it out. Of course the Court is aware that we overoptimistically said we would be able to get you a verbatim word for word transcript of this pretty quickly. That is now finished and by the end of the day Mr. Douglas will walk through those doors with hopefully a redacted verbatim transcript and an offer of proof that is key to our transcript. With regard to Miss McKinny's transcript, some of the pages are off. We had discovered this in North Carolina. Also, as the Court is aware, the first tapes have been--the first tape had been taped over and she had--the first 48 pages apparently you hadn't been given, and I discovered that last night when I returned and I gave those to your Honor's clerk this morning.

THE COURT: Well, I spent several hours this weekend. At first it was so incoherent I couldn't figure out what was going on, but I figured since time was of the essence I ought to at least try to make some sense of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure, sure.

THE COURT: After going through your offer of proof and trying to correlate it with the tape and the transcript, I couldn't do it, and I don't think it is my obligation going through twelve hours of tape looking for particular excerpts.

MR. COCHRAN: It certainly isn't. These items are on the tapes and it is important that you be able to hear them. And I have asked today Messers. Jerry Uelmen, Bailey, Douglas, are keying the offer of proof to the tapes and to the first transcript, of course, which is not on tape which she did, and you will have them by five o'clock. In addition to that, you are aware that we have cleaned up all but three of the tapes for background noise and I understand that by ten o'clock tomorrow morning the remaining three will be cleaned up, so you will have those, so you will have the--everything.

THE COURT: I will have clean cassettes and a coherent transcript and an offer of proof that is keyed to the--

MR. COCHRAN: Key to our verbatim transcript.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: By five o'clock and the remaining three transcripts will be here by ten o'clock tomorrow morning. Okay. And I apologize that the Court had to go through anything that caused you any problems because you got a flavor for it, but we want it to be so that you will understand exactly where they are keyed directly in and we will have it. And while we are about that, I would like to find out, just for a matter of scheduling witnesses, how you plan to do that. Let's assume that you have that--the offer of proof and the transcripts and everything in it, you will have our brief--we filed a brief regarding the admissibility of that this morning. What would be your Honor's pleasure? When will we get to the 402 hearing, given that schedule that I just laid out?

THE COURT: Well, see, that is the dilemma, because I had hoped to spend this weekend doing all of that, reviewing the tapes and comparing it and then hearing argument and considering the Prosecution's objections, because I didn't want to lose the jury time.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

THE COURT: But now it appears I'm going to have to use court time and my own after hours time to do this.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We will be ready as much as we can to have witnesses to fill in at least until you reach the point where you say, okay, let's do this.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at side bar without the court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I just want to make sure we have witnesses and our scheduling together. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to the Court's order we filed today concerning the difficulty in locating those passages on the tapes, I should indicate to the Court that with respect to the first entitled segment of the Court's order, "Racial epithets," all of those portions are not on tape. That tape has been destroyed. All we have is Laura McKinny's transcript, quote-unquote. It is not a verbatim transcript. I believe that is the same problem that you are going to find with the incidents of misconduct.

THE COURT: Well, why don't we save this argument.

MS. CLARK: I'm not going to argue. I'm just informing the Court that you will not find it in the transcript because there is no tape.

THE COURT: That goes to weight that I have to accord it to see whether it is trustworthy, reliable.

MS. CLARK: All I am alerting the Court of is if you are listening for this on tape, you will not hear it. None of this is on tape.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: With respect to the verbatim transcript, we have prepared verbatim transcripts of the all of the tapes that exist and we agreed with the Defense, I agreed with Mr. Bailey last week, to furnish them a copy of our transcript if they will give us a copy of theirs, and we agreed on that.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran just reiterated that.

MS. CLARK: I could also request whatever the Defense is giving to the Court, they furnish a copy of that also.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: We will do that.

THE COURT: All right. Let's--is this on the tapes issue?

MR. SCHECK: No, this is on the discovery of Dr. Lee. You can take this up now, you can take this up--

THE COURT: I would like to finish the Fuhrman tapes first. We have counsel for Miss McKinny here who faxed to the court and I think counsel a letter indicating their concern that transcripts of these tape-recordings have leaked out. Gentlemen.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Schwartz, good morning.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. We are here to follow up on that letter that we wrote to you. We are concerned about these persisting violations of the court order. As the Court may or may not be aware, last Friday morning the Los Angeles times printed an article that contained a verbatim portion of our client's protected intellectual property. And furthermore, the Reuters news organization transmitted over the wires across the country for everybody to see additional portions verbatim of our client's protected material.

THE COURT: Do you know the source of that? Is there any court document that may be the source of that?

MR. SCHWARTZ: We suspect that it could have originated from the Defense's offer of proof, but we are not sure, but the giving of this information to the media at this point in time, especially since nothing has yet even been ruled admissible, is obviously in direct contradiction to this Court's protective order.

And there have been three sets of our client's material that have been disseminated during these proceedings. The originals went to the court and we tendered a complete copy to the Prosecution and a complete copy to the Defense. Therefore, the people responsible for violating the court order are here today, and this Court shares with our client a vested interest in the enforcement of this court order. Obviously our client is interested in protecting her propriety interest. But this Court has to be concerned about the challenged to its authority that has occurred. If this challenge does not go unanswered, then perhaps the dominion of the Court could be threatened and the force and effect of future rulings of this Court could be affected. And therefore we are asking this Court to request the attorneys on both sides to conduct their own investigations and try to find the source of these leaks, and if they are unsuccessful, by perhaps close of business Wednesday or Thursday, we would like to ask the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing wherein Mr. Regwan and I will be able to conduct direct examination of the journalists who carried these stories throughout their organizations. And the news shield, the shield law will not pose a problem, your Honor, because the shield law will not protect officers of the court from violating a court order. If the shield law is raised, umm, then it would unconstitutionally impinge on the independence of this judiciary and so the shield law will be inapplicable. We have done the research. It will be a very easy proceeding and we will just bring in a couple of reporters point blank and ask where did you get this information from, and they will be able to tell us.

THE COURT: Mr. Schwartz, do you have a copy of the Defense offer of proof that was filed late last week?

MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I don't, your Honor. I believe that was filed under seal.

THE COURT: All right. My staff compared that offer of proof with the quoted passage from the Los Angeles times article. I did not read the article myself; however, they showed me highlighted portions and they appeared to come from the offer of proof. What I will do, Mr. Schwartz, I will--first of all, I'm going to direct counsel on both sides to file all documents with regards to this issue with the Court under seal.

Secondly, Mr. Schwartz, I'm going to direct that the clerk of the court give you a certified copy of the offer of proof so you can compare it with the news leaks and we will see if we can at least pare down what the source--probable source is.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

THE COURT: Then we will take it from there.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you like me to reappear after I have had an opportunity to review the offer of proof?

THE COURT: Yes. You can notify the Court of your position by mail, as we are going to be busy with other witnesses.

MR. SCHWARTZ: All right. Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else before we start with Mr. Ragle?

MR. COCHRAN: Just one other thing, your Honor. I just got a call from Mr. Douglas about Dr. Reichardt. He is scheduled for tomorrow morning and we cannot get him here today at all, neither he or his lawyers.

THE COURT: Well, I think we are being optimistic if we think we are going to finish with Mr. Ragle today.

MR. COCHRAN: That will not be a problem.

MR. DARDEN: I will be ready tomorrow.

MR. SCHECK: I want to bring up the Dr. Lee matter maybe after we break or maybe just before we begin in the afternoon to set the discovery issue straight. We had some discussions about that this morning.

THE COURT: All right. You handed to the Court, Mr. Scheck, a number of copies of your upcoming photo boards.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Most of which look very familiar to the Court.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, the--what has happened is that Dr. Lee I guess over close to a month ago filed a report in this case. We have turned over all the notes. We turned over to the Prosecution Xeroxed copies of photographs taken at Albany and other photographs that they previously had from Dr. Lee, and photographs from these boards, some of which, many of which are their own photographs. I should note, with respect to the Albany photographs, that they had a photographer and they had a witness on the scene for everything that was examined in Albany, so they have their own copies or an opportunity to look at those pictures.

In any event, there is one, I believe one, maybe two, but one more board that is not reflected in those copies which I know is arriving today that is just a blow-up of other pictures that are contained within those boards and other pictures that the Prosecution has had available to it. The--Mr. Goldberg this morning--now, the other thing, that there was mention of access to Dr. Lee and opportunities to talk to him and find out about his testimony and that was broached by Mr. Hodgman and others at the crime scene. What you should know is that the Prosecution--we have a difference--and I will just chalk it up to misunderstanding--that I had communicated to Mr. Goldberg that when the Prosecution talked with Dr. Lee, because he is always available to talk with the other side, that is his policy, it is a standing policy, that I wanted to be on the line so that we could have a record of it. He doesn't recall it and that is fine. I don't want--I don't want to dispute that. That is not an issue. They did, I believe, speak--they sent some questions to him. He was in Indonesia. They spoke with him about two or three weeks ago, then--

THE COURT: That man sure gets around, doesn't he?

MR. SCHECK: He does. Then the--Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Goldberg, I believe, had a fairly extensive conversation with him, either Saturday or Sunday, they can tell you best. I know from Dr. Lee that--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Scheck--

MR. SCHECK: --Peter de Forest, the rebuttal witness, went over those boards with him on Sunday.

THE COURT: Wait. Rather than tell me all this history, what is the bottom line?

MR. SCHECK: The bottom line is they are saying to us this morning that until--that they demand photo pictures of every photograph that we turned over in the Xeroxed materials. We only have one set of the Albany photographs. I offered to let them have any particular Albany photograph that they wanted. I have for them photographs of all pictures on the boards, plus they have a copy of the boards, plus Dr. de Forest spent four hours with Dr. Lee in his home yesterday going over the boards and going over his testimony, and Dr. de Forest is their expert and their rebuttal witness. More than this we can't do. I can endeavor to try--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Those are color Xeroxed and they are terrific, so I don't know what else it is that they want by way of discovery. I guess, you know, I'm unfamiliar with rules in this jurisdiction extensively, I guess, but the only other thing they could possibly want is for me to open up my files and show them the entire work product. This is unprecedented in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer. They have had an opportunity to talk with this man, to see every picture, to look at everything he is going to say prior to his testimony, go over it with a fine tooth comb.

THE COURT: So all I need to do--

MR. SCHECK: I don't know what else to tell you.

THE COURT: All I need to do is ask Mr. Goldberg what more do you want?

MR. SCHECK: I don't know what else to tell you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I want more, your Honor, and I would have liked it much, much earlier. And I am not prepared to give an in-depth argument on this issue right now because I don't have any notes as to dates and when I received things. The generality is that the Defense has dumped an enormous amount of documentation that is relevant to Henry Lee within the last few weeks relating to a number of different examinations of different items of evidence, and basically his testimony is going to cover the gamut of almost everything that came from the crime scene. So I would like to make at some point a much more extensive argument, obviously it will have to be in the very near future, because of discovery sanctions, because it has impaired on our capacity to be ready. And I'm simply not prepared to say now, well, this report came from an examination in February and we didn't receive it until just two weeks ago. I just can't do that at this point, but I will be able to.

THE COURT: When?

MR. GOLDBERG: I will try to get it together as soon as I'm out of court on Mr. Ragle. You know, I worked all day on Saturday and Sunday on Henry Lee and trying to prepare to the best of my ability with a great quantity of material. Now, the photographs that are being referred to counsel has told come from a variety of different examinations. Some of them were from the Albany trip, some of them are from the LAPD examinations.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, forgive me for interrupting you, but if you are not prepared to address the issue at this point, why don't we start with the jury with Mr. Ragle, at least give them something to do today. You and your other people that are assisting you can put together the items and we can take it up at that time.

MR. GOLDBERG: The only reason it might be helpful to address this now is on the very limited issue of the photographs, setting everything else aside. I asked counsel for the actual photographs and he said that the color Xeroxes are sufficient. That might be helpful to resolve now because it will probably take them some time to provide those to me if the Court feels that the People are entitled to them, so the Court might want to decide that now so that they can get those photographs to me as quickly as possible. Now, the reason why we believe we are entitled to the actual photographs, as opposed to Xerox copies, color Xerox copies, is that in this case, as the Court knows, we have put photographs up on the elmo and very frequently the Defense will point out to some little speck somewhere or the absence of some speck somewhere or staple holes in the case of that exhibit, and hinge a massive theory of the case around the existence or nonexistence of that speck. These photographs are purportedly examination quality photographs of things like impressions of things like hair and trace material in soil and the like.

THE COURT: How many photographs are we talking about?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there are approximately, and counsel could give you a more accurate estimate than I could, approximately I would say fifty pages of discovery containing photographs and each page contains two or three photos and Mr. Scheck perhaps has quantified that.

MR. SCHECK: I can get to the point. Maybe we can solve this. Every photograph that we intend introduce into evidence and that is on those boards they can have. Just so you know, the dispute is that we gave them more, we gave them photographs from Albany--and I thank them for pronouncing Albany as Albany--we gave them that. So now what he is saying is I want photocopies, not Xeroxed copies of all these other things that you are not going to introduce that you gave to us which you didn't have to give in the first place. Now, I only have one set of those at the present time in terms of photographs and I gave him Xeroxed copies of it and I have said to him--

THE COURT: These are color Xerox copies?

MR. SCHECK: These are color Xerox copies and they are terrific. And I said to him, if there is any particular one of these photographs that we don't intend to introduce into evidence--he is going to get all the ones which we intend to introduce, which I submit is our only legal obligation here--if you want another one of those and you need to see it, I will give you that print, so--

THE COURT: Seems like a non-dispute then. All right. Settle it over the lunch hour, give him whatever photographs he wants that you are not going to use.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would like all of the ones--I would like all of them.

THE COURT: You are being unreasonable. They have given you color photographs. They can exhibit to you the original. He has indicated he will give you any one that they are not going to use. Settle it between yourselves at lunch. You guys are wasting my time here. All right. Let's have the jury. Are they upstairs?

THE BAILIFF: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Bring them down.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the late start this morning. I had a number of issues that we needed to determine out of your presence. I also wanted to give you fair warning, there is one major issue that I need to resolve with the lawyers that is coming up. My guess is that it will take me about twenty hours to examine the issues and the evidence that is being presented to me, and I anticipate using my evening hours to try to do most of that, but it may also include some court time. And I just wanted to give you a warning that there may be substantial dark time coming up this week, just so you know. All right. The Defense may call their next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the Defense calls Larry Ragle.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ragle.

John Larry Ragle, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MR. RAGLE: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. RAGLE: My name is John Larry Ragle. It is J-O-H-N, Larry, L-A-R-R-Y, Ragle, R-A-G-L-E.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, you are here to testify as an expert in crime scene processing techniques, are you not?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you give us a brief description of your undergraduate training, educational background.

MR. RAGLE: I attended the University of California at Berkeley and I received a bachelor's of science degree in criminalistics, which is now called forensic science, at Berkeley, in 1959.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have any specific training as a police officer?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that training consist of?

MR. RAGLE: I'm a graduate of the California peace Officer's Association academy.

MR. BLASIER: And what year did you graduate from the academy?

MR. RAGLE: 1957.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you describe your employment between 1956 and 1960.

MR. RAGLE: In 1956 I became a member of the Berkeley Police Department. I was a patrol--patrolman and an investigator until 1960.

MR. BLASIER: And in 1960 where did you go?

MR. RAGLE: In 1960 I became an employee of the Orange County Sheriff's Department here in California.

MR. BLASIER: And in your capacity with the Orange County Sheriff's Department from--now, that was from 1960 to what year?

MR. RAGLE: 1989.

MR. BLASIER: And from 1960 to 1976 did you have a particular area that you worked in?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What was that?

MR. RAGLE: My assignment was as a general criminalist.

MR. BLASIER: And what was the nature of your responsibilities as a general criminalist?

MR. RAGLE: As a generalist I investigated all types of crimes, either at the crime scene or analyzing evidence in court and testifying to my findings in court.

MR. BLASIER: During that period of time did you conduct any investigation into homicides?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Any investigations into double homicides?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you--was your primary responsibility investigating crime scenes themselves?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What was your primary responsibility?

MR. RAGLE: My primary responsibility was analyzing evidence.

MR. BLASIER: That would be after evidence was collected at a crime scene it would be your job to analyze it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now from 1976 to 1989 what was your position?

MR. RAGLE: In 1976 I was promoted to at that time what was called a chief criminalist and that was the manager of the crime laboratory, the tox--and the toxicology laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: That is basically the person that is in charge of the whole crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you held that position until what date?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: What year?

MR. RAGLE: Technically in 1977 that position was changed and it became--the title became the director of forensic science, so actually I held the position of chief criminalist for one year. In 1977 the crime laboratory and the toxicology laboratory was combined with the identification bureau, which is the--all the crime scene investigators, and the Coroner's office.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to say that your job was similar to Michele Kestler's job in Los Angeles County, your job in Orange County was similar?

MR. RAGLE: You could say that. There was additional responsibilities.

MR. BLASIER: Additional responsibilities that you had?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did those consist of?

MR. RAGLE: The Coroner's office, for one, was an organization investigates all types of deaths, not just deaths that are suspected crimes, the crime scene identification bureau and the Cal I.D. Bureau, which is the automated fingerprint system, and then the Coroner's toxicology section, and those are not part of the Los Angeles Police Department SID.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in your capacity as the director of the Orange County crime lab, approximately how many people did you supervise?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: At any given time?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the lab grew during that period of time and by the time I retired there were between 100 and 110 employees.

MR. BLASIER: And how many of those people were criminalists or toxicologists?

MR. RAGLE: Approximately sixty.

MR. BLASIER: What types of cases would you respond to or your people would respond to from the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: In the criminalistics section, which would be the--similar to the Los Angeles Police Department's SID, the types of crime scenes that we responded to would be questioned deaths, drug laboratories, post bomb detonation scenes, arsons.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you go to crime scenes that were being processed just by the Orange County Sheriff's Department or other police agencies in Orange County?

MR. RAGLE: Both.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the--I think you indicated that the Coroner's office was also under your direction at some point in time. What period of time was that?

MR. RAGLE: From 1977 until 1986 or `85, right in that time range, nine years.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at the time that you retired from the Orange County crime lab, is it accurate to say that that was considered to be one of the best crime labs in the country?

MR. RAGLE: It--it was and I believe it still is.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give me a rough estimate of the total number of crime scenes that--well, let me ask you this about homicides: How many homicides per year are there in Orange County?

MR. RAGLE: The average would be around 150. It can--it has been--starting when I first was an employee of the department, somewhere around fifty to sixty, and by the end of my career there were--homicides were somewhere in the number of 200.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many of those homicides would your office be involved in processing the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Approximately half.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the other half would be processed by who?

MR. RAGLE: By some of the cities who had--two cities had crime laboratories, small crime laboratories, or by their field evidence technicians.

MR. BLASIER: For all of the homicides handled by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, would it be your responsibility, or the people working for you, to process those scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Since your retirement in 1989 what have you been doing?

MR. RAGLE: Primarily I've been acting as a consultant in the management areas of forensic science.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have a company that has a name?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What is that?

MR. RAGLE: The center of forensic science.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you say "Consulting," what sorts of consulting do you do?

MR. RAGLE: The--really falls into a couple different categories. One would be the needs assessment, that is, what type of response should a crime laboratory be able to offer to the criminal justice system, to all levels of the criminal justice system, and then also in the area of laboratory design, space allocations, relative to staffing and case load.

MR. BLASIER: Have you been involved over your career with designing crime labs or redesigning crime labs?

MR. RAGLE: Both.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give us just a couple of examples?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the laboratory in Orange County is the one I'm most familiar with because that laboratory was redesigned on several occasions unsuccessfully. That is, we made a design but nothing ever happened with that design. But ultimately, at the conclusion of my employment, the county agreed to build a new forensic science facility.

MR. BLASIER: And have you worked for other counties as a consultant--

MR. RAGLE: I also wanted to say that I was also involved in the design of what is called the forensic center in Orange County, which is the morgue, and then I have worked for other counties.

MR. BLASIER: What other counties have you worked for?

MR. RAGLE: As a consultant, after I retired, San Diego County and Contra Costa County. Before I retired, Ventura County, Santa Clara County and San Diego County.

MR. BLASIER: And does that involve law enforcement officials from those counties contacting you and retaining you to help them with their crime labs?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have any teaching experience?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you currently teaching classes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the subject matter of the classes that you teach now?

MR. RAGLE: The class that I am teaching for the University of California at Los Angeles is a class called crime scene investigation or field evidence technician class.

MR. BLASIER: And just generally what does that encompass?

MR. RAGLE: It encompasses the process of processing a crime scene, the entire scope of processing a crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: And how long have you been teaching either that course or other courses that have the same topic?

MR. RAGLE: That course started in 1968 and it is essentially unchanged in its nature, although there have been technical improvements in crime scene process.

MR. BLASIER: Now, how long does that class take, the way it is now?

MR. RAGLE: The class is a two-week class, a two-week class involving the students being at the classroom eight hours a day.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the--the students that take your class, who are they primarily made up of?

MR. RAGLE: The--right now it is about a 50-50 split. That is, about half of the students are police officers, sworn police officers, and the other half are civilian employees of law enforcement agencies. Occasionally there is a student who would--is seeking employment in some sort of law enforcement agency that takes a class.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you want to add something about the length of time that your classes take?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I didn't want to imply that I was involved in the class for the entire two weeks. My part of the class is two days of each session.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have any FBI agents in your class?

MR. RAGLE: There have been, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you--did any--has the FBI been sending people to your class partly as a result of your involvement in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, during your work on this case for the Defense, have you had contact with FBI agents?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And since that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many people have attended your class since it started in 1968?

MR. RAGLE: In the neighborhood of 4000.

MR. BLASIER: Have any people from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department attended your classes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know how many?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know how many. It would be the total number of the people assigned to their Crime Scene Investigation Bureau.

MR. BLASIER: To your knowledge has anyone from the L.A. Police Department SID ever come to any of your classes?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Have you been an lecturer at any law school?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And where is that?

MR. RAGLE: In Orange County.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever testified as an expert in court?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

MR. RAGLE: If you include every type of case, close to a thousand times.

MR. BLASIER: And is that primarily when you were working with the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Exclusively.

MR. BLASIER: During that period of time were you ever--

MR. RAGLE: I was going to say I have testified a few times in Berkeley, but on rare occasion.

MR. BLASIER: But most of your experience testifying has been in your capacity with the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever been called as a witness by the Defense?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me limit that to when you were with the Orange County crime lab.

MR. RAGLE: Five or six times.

MR. BLASIER: And was that result of the Defense retaining you or for some other reason?

MR. RAGLE: That was--some other reason.

MR. BLASIER: And what would that be?

MR. RAGLE: The results of my examination in the laboratory favored their client.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe the professional organizations that you belong to?

MR. RAGLE: I'm a member and the past president of the California Association of Criminalists, CAC. I'm a member emeritus of the California society of crime laboratory directors. I'm a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Science. And I'm a member emeritus of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.

MR. BLASIER: And have you received any appointments during your career in your area of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What sorts of appointments?

MR. RAGLE: I've been a member of the California Department of Justice DNA advisory committee. This was part of the attorney general study on DNA. I was a member of the California Department of Justice, what they call CCI, which is the criminalist--California Criminalistics Institute, which is a training organization, and that role included recommending types of classes and training that would benefit crime laboratory employees. I was a member of the California Department of Justice's Cal I.D. User committee. The user committee was a group of people like myself who were managers of laboratories that were in the process of installing the California computerized fingerprint identification system called Cal i.d. and I've been a member of the state of California epidemiology study group and I was a member and the chairperson of the FBI committee on what was called forensic science operations and procedures committee, which was a committee that recommended to the FBI training section the types of research and the types of classes that would be most beneficial to law enforcement agencies.

MR. BLASIER: Who appointed you to that FBI committee?

MR. RAGLE: The president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, or the board, I'm not sure which. I think as a group they make those appointments.

MR. BLASIER: Do you hold any licenses or certificates in your area of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Technically no longer.

MR. BLASIER: Have you held licenses?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And why don't you tell us what those are.

MR. RAGLE: At one time I was licensed as a supervisor of the forensic alcohol analysis, a state license. I also was certified as a generalist in the field of criminalistics by the California Association of Criminalists, and that particular certification is now defunct, it expired after five years--actually, it didn't really expire after five years; it was changed to a different organization and I have to take a new examination this year if I'm going to be certified again.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the organization that provides accreditation to crime labs as well or is that the American association?

MR. RAGLE: It is not the same, no; it is a different--a different board.

MR. BLASIER: Does--do you know whether the California Association of Criminalists still certifies criminalists?

MR. RAGLE: No, they don't.

MR. BLASIER: Who does that now?

MR. RAGLE: The American Board of Criminalistics.

MR. BLASIER: Have you published any articles or made any presentations concerning your field of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe briefly what some of those publications and presentations are?

MR. RAGLE: Early on I did some presentations on toxicology tests that I had developed in the laboratory on determining amphetamines and amphetamine type compounds in body fluids. I published an article--not an article, but a chapter on forensic science in a textbook that was generally called "Principles of investigation," something like that. I don't remember the exact title. I made presentations at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences on two particular cases that I felt were something that the scientific community should be aware of.

MR. BLASIER: One of those involved the falsification of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it did.

MR. BLASIER: Tell us briefly what that was about.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you currently have a book that is in the process of being published?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the name of that book?

MR. RAGLE: "Crime scenes."

MR. BLASIER: Is that a textbook or is that a general interest book?

MR. RAGLE: It is a general interest book.

MR. BLASIER: Was that book completed prior to the time that you were hired to work on this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: But it hasn't yet been published?

MR. RAGLE: It has been published. It will be released this year some time.

MR. BLASIER: Now, during your tenure with the Orange County crime lab did you ever have any experiences with outbreaks of contamination?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what--what was the response to the outbreak of contamination that you had experience with?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there is no foundation for qualifications on PCR.

THE COURT: Sustained. Also vague.

MR. BLASIER: Prior to being retained by the Defense in the Simpson case, had you been hired by the Defense in any other criminal cases?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many?

MR. RAGLE: Two.

MR. BLASIER: Were those large cases like this one or were they relatively minor cases?

MR. RAGLE: Well, they were--I don't know if you could call them relatively minor. My aspect in the case was relatively minor.

MR. BLASIER: Have there been other instances where you have been asked to work on the Defense side of criminal cases where you have refused?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Does that happen fairly frequently?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have received compensation for your services during this case, have you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: When did you first become involved with the Simpson case?

MR. RAGLE: In the latter part of June of 1994.

MR. BLASIER: And that was at whose behest?

MR. RAGLE: Dr. Henry Lee asked if I could be of some assistance.

MR. BLASIER: And have you been involved working with the Defense on a somewhat continuous basis since this time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach on a matter?

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I wanted to make an offer on the falsification of evidence presentation. I think it is relevant to the issues in this case. It is a situation where he was asked to investigate the possibility that fingerprints were falsified, so I would like to go into them very briefly.

THE COURT: Have we got any falsified fingerprints in this case?

MR. BLASIER: Not fingerprints, no, but other issues of falsification certainly.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon that offer, the ruling stands.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, you indicated that you first became involved approximately June 26th of last year?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And have you been regularly involved in the case on a semi-continuous basis since that time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Has that involved numerous meetings and sessions where we have discussed crime scene processing issues?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it has.

MR. BLASIER: And have you watched much of the testimony in this case on television about crime scene processing from the detectives, as well as the forensic people as well as the Coroner?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us approximately how much you have been paid so far in this case?

MR. RAGLE: To date approximately $35,000.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your regular billing rate?

MR. RAGLE: My regular billing rate would be $200.00. That is not what I've been charging in this case.

MR. BLASIER: And what have you been charging in this case?

MR. RAGLE: For attending the meetings, half of that, a hundred dollars an hour. For monitoring testimony on TV, $50.00 an hour.

MR. BLASIER: And is the amount that you have been paid so far, does that cover everything you have done or do you have a certain amount that you will be billing after this?

MR. RAGLE: Last billing submitted included June and I haven't been paid for that, or possibly--June. I didn't do anything in July, and now this month.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, given your training and experience in the area of crime scene processing, do you have an understanding of the minimum standard of practice which should be used to process crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I ask you to try and break down the processing of a crime scene into some categories for me?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, you did.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have two slides marked next in order?

THE CLERK: 1326.

MR. BLASIER: 1326-A and B.

THE COURT: Fine, a and B.

(Deft's 1326-A & 1326-B for id = slides)

THE COURT: Do you have any more you need to show, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: I showed these to him before.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we approach on this?

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar and I have been shown two boards, one of which is entitled "Crime scene processing" and the other which is "Chronology."

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't have an objection necessarily to the top one. I believe that we had a three-day rule on showing charts and diagrams and I didn't receive this until this morning, so it should be excluded on that basis. The problem with the chronology is--and I haven't checked out every single time because I just didn't have time because I only saw it this morning--some of them are off. For example, Dennis Fung and Mazzola received a call at 5:26, so that is only--that is four minutes off, but it is off. They arrived at Bundy--excuse me--at Rockingham at 7:10. They left Rockingham at ten o'clock, so they probably arrived at Bundy at about 10:10 or 10:15 and I just haven't checked the rest of the--the times, but the point is, is that some of them are incorrect and shouldn't be used.

MR. BLASIER: They are all intended to be approximate times, Judge. Whether it is a minute or two off is not significant. The purpose of this chart is just to show when criminalists were called, when the bodies were found, just the general delay that occurred. I mean, I will state that they are approximate times.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm going to direct you not to use this until Mr. Goldberg has had the opportunity to check the times. I take it this is in your computer, though?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

THE COURT: It is on the hard drive?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

THE COURT: That can be changed?

MR. BLASIER: I am getting to this right after this one. That is the problem.

MR. GOLDBERG: We can always do it orally.

THE COURT: Yeah. All right. That is the order. All right. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1326-A, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, can you see the monitor there to your right?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I can.

MR. BLASIER: And the categories on the chart, "Recognition of evidence," "Protection of evidence," "Documentation," "Collection" and "Preservation," those are the categories that you broke down the various steps of crime scene processing into?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us briefly what--we want to go through each of those categories--what you mean by the term "Recognition of evidence"?

MR. RAGLE: The recognition of evidence in this context means that the individual, either the police officer or the field evidence technician or the criminalist, has either an innate ability, an intuition or special training in what types of evidence would be important at a particular crime scene. Since every crime scene the evidence varies. They have to be aware of the consequences and the significance of particular types of evidence and then set forth some method of capturing that.

MR. BLASIER: And the term "Protection of evidence," what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: The protection of evidence in relation to the first category, the recognition, both of those are sort of ongoing processes throughout any crime scene investigation. The protection specifically is taking some measure that will assure that that evidence isn't changed, once the investigative team arrives--arrives at the scene, so that the concept here is that if they could, they would freeze the entire evidence and they would pick it up and take it to some safe haven, so they set up barriers, they maintain a log of the people who come in and out of the crime scene, and most importantly, they minimize the type and the number of people that come in and out of the crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the term "Documentation," how are you using that term?

MR. RAGLE: That is an all--sort of an all-encompassing term that would include the specifics of the location of each item that is believed to be evidence at the time, which appears to be relevant to the investigation at the time. And it includes photography, at least three different types of photographs, general photographs of the scene where this object might be seen off in the distance, a close-up photograph of it, what I would call an orientation photograph, and then a very close-up photograph where there is some documentation as to the size and the nature of that particular item, what it might be. Then those items that are considered relevant are measured very precisely relative to some fixed objects at the crime scene, so that if it is necessary that whole crime scene could be reconstructed and people who weren't at the crime scene to begin with could--could recognize and understand where each item of evidence was. And then finally the evidence is documented, carries on into some of these other--other phases, which is the collection of the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: All right. "Collection," how are you using that term?

MR. RAGLE: The collection--the physical--physical picking up of the object in such a way that its value as evidence is maintained. And it may be packaged, it may be something that has to be carried in--to maintain its integrity, its originality. It might have to be packaged and something just carried in your hand like a pizza box or some type of open container like that. A loaded weapon is an example.

MR. BLASIER: And "Preservation of the crime scene," what does that refer to, or "Preservation of the evidence"?

MR. RAGLE: The preservation of the evidence again is an ongoing subject. It pertains to maintaining that evidence in as close to its original condition as possible and that begins obviously with the protection of the evidence, so nothing happens to it, and then ultimately in the way it is packaged, so it is packaged in something that accommodates the object, that doesn't add to any--any destruction of the evidence, that doesn't change the nature of the evidence. And then the preservation goes on until then, how that evidence is stored. Some objects have to be stored frozen, some refrigerated, some dry.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you talk about protection of the evidence and keeping it in its original condition, does that include also any trace evidence that might be on pieces of evidence in terms of maintaining that it is in the same place when it was found as when it is collected?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Why is it important that these steps be done properly?

MR. RAGLE: The main reason is that if evidence is in any way degraded or altered, its potential, what I call individuality, its uniqueness can change, can be lost. Obviously if evidence is--is not--you go back to step 1 in this outline. If evidence is not recognized or--or properly documented or collected, it can leave a lot of unanswered questions. Many crime scenes contain a lot of information that could answer questions, and so if these things are not done, evidence of a person's involvement might be overlooked or evidence of a person's non-involvement might be overlooked.

MR. BLASIER: You used an analogy with me when we were discussing this of a dictionary. Could you explain that to the jurors, please.

MR. RAGLE: In sort of a simplistic statement that I said is that every crime scene is like a book or a dictionary. I mean, if you know where to open up the pages and look up the information, you can answer many questions, and most crime scenes, not all, but most crime scenes are loaded with information, if the crime scene team is trained and interested in finding this information.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what are the consequences that can result when this is not done properly?

MR. RAGLE: Well, you miss the information. What I mentioned a moment ago, particularly--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, you talked about evidence losing its individuality. What did you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: A good example of that would be like if the fingerprint was discovered at a crime scene that had all the detail that could be established to show ownership of that fingerprint and it is not collected possibly or ignored until something--somebody smudges it and now all you can say is it is a fingerprint and it might have fingerprint characteristics, but the fine detail is now missing, and the fine detail is what is necessary for identification.

MR. BLASIER: Now, given the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case--and by "Crime scenes" I'm talking about Rockingham and Bundy--fell above or below minimum standards of practice?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor, no foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with their crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Somewhat.

MR. BLASIER: And have you followed all the testimony about the manner in which the crime scenes were processed in this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And you are familiar with their crime scene truck and the equipment that they have testified to that they have available to them?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an opinion--with that understanding in mind, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case fell above or below a minimum standard of practice?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still no foundation, not relevant, calls for opinion and speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

MR. BLASIER: You can answer.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That it fell below a minimum standard.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your basis for that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: The basis of the opinion--my opinion that it fell below a minimum standard--

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm going to object. Calls for a narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: The outcome of the evidence, the things that occurred to the evidence that caused it to lose some of its individuality, some of the items that were contaminated at the evidence (Sic) in the sense, for instance, there was something placed over a body at that evidence--at that crime scene, which was a mistake in the sense of the choice of whatever it was, not a mistake necessarily to cover a body if it is in public view, and there is some question of--of just humanistic aspect of covering up the remains of somebody.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's talk about that specifically. You are familiar with the testimony that a blanket was removed from inside Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium and was placed over her body?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And when you indicate that that was a mistake, could you tell us which aspect of that is a mistake?

MR. RAGLE: Well, there are really two aspects. The first is the fact that they picked something from the crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, again this is not relevant pursuant to our previous argument this morning.

THE COURT: Overruled. Noted. Thank you. Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: They selected something from the crime scene and used that and that leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to that--the condition of whatever it was they picked, I believe a blanket. But the biggest problem, from my perspective, is that they then did not collect that blanket and retain it for whatever evidential value it might have had because it was in contact with one of the bodies. There are--there are all kinds of possibilities of transfers from--if not from the blanket to the body, from the body to the blanket, and that would have been helpful and is just something that should have been done.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that there may be humanistic reasons to cover a body at a crime scene. Are there any legitimate investigative or forensic reasons for covering a body at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Only if weather conditions would cause that need.

MR. BLASIER: Now, suppose hypothetically that the blanket that was used had recently been laundered. Does that make any difference in your view?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: Well, you still don't--unless you have the blanket to look at, you still don't know what might have been on it or not on it, and more importantly, you don't know what was transferred to it after it was used.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you familiar with the testimony that there were some blood droplets on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion is the manner in which that was handled proper?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Would you please explain your answer.

MR. RAGLE: Well, that obviously is very important evidence, and it was not collected at the crime scene and there was some explanation as to why it was not collected at the crime scene which I find unacceptable.

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding of that explanation?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, is your opinion based on your understanding of what the reason was that that was not collected?

MR. RAGLE: Can I answer that in a narrative form?

THE COURT: No.

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: What is the basis of your testimony? Was it the testimony that you heard?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your understanding of that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: That it was not the job of the criminalist, it was the job of the Coroners to collect that sample.

MR. BLASIER: When you say that is not acceptable, what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: Well, until the Coroner's experts are at the scene, by putting the body in a body bag, all that evidence is destroyed or at least contaminated.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important in your view that the Coroner's office, the Scientific Investigation Division people and the detectives, work closely together?

MR. RAGLE: Is it my observation that they work closely together?

MR. BLASIER: No. Is it your opinion that they should?

MR. RAGLE: That they should, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And from what point in the investigation should that occur?

MR. RAGLE: From the very beginning.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you some questions about timing of when various people were called to this crime scene occurred. Are you familiar with the time frame in which the criminalists were called, the Coroners were called?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding of when the bodies were found?

MR. RAGLE: 12:15 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: And when were the--when was the first call to the criminalist, approximately?

MR. RAGLE: My understanding is it was 5:30.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your understanding as to when criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that scene, approximately?

MR. RAGLE: 7:00 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any--in your opinion any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to be served by not calling criminalists for approximately ten hours to the primary crime scene?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me back up one question. Did you--what is your understanding of when the criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that?

MR. RAGLE: At the Bundy scene?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I believe 10:15 or in that--in that time frame. 10:15, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason or purpose to be served by not having the criminalist at the primary crime scene for ten hours?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding as to when the criminalists began processing Rockingham?

MR. RAGLE: Began processing Rockingham?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, or arrived at Rockingham?

MR. RAGLE: 7:00 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony that the detectives, Lange, Vannatter, Phillips and Fuhrman, left the Bundy crime scene at approximately five o'clock in the morning to make a death notification to Mr. Simpson. In your opinion is that an appropriate procedure to take?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for his opinion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: In your view is there any legitimate investigative or forensic purpose for the investigative detectives to leave the crime scene for a period of time to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: How many people does it generally take to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundational problem with all that line of questioning.

MR. BLASIER: Well, are you--did you watch the testimony of the detectives in this case as to when they went to Rockingham and for what purpose?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether it is an appropriate procedure to use in investigating a crime scene to have all the detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to what might be a secondary scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, do you have any experience on the procedures that are used to make death notifications in homicide cases?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that experience consist of?

MR. RAGLE: As the director and in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Orange County Coroner's division, I am aware of how notifications are made.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion as to the appropriateness of having four detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to a secondary scene to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's abandon this line of questioning on the foundation.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Foundation. It is not there.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion what is the importance of having criminalists respond to a crime scene as soon as possible?

MR. RAGLE: The reason that you would want a criminalist to come to a crime scene as soon as possible is the nature of some evidence is in question, is perishable, and you never know what the weather conditions may be, so the sooner they arrive, the less chance of any degradation or loss of evidence.

MR. BLASIER: When you say some evidence is perishable, what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: Biological materials, for example, blood in a hostile environment, such as a crime scene, the ground is not in its normal environment, go bad.

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance of having the Coroner called to a crime scene as soon as possible?

MR. RAGLE: My experience with having the Coroner come to the crime scene as soon as possible is that they are trained in establishing or estimating the time of death.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important that all of those agencies begin working together at the very earliest moment?

MR. RAGLE: In my opinion it is, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to not begin processing the Bundy crime scene until ten hours after the bodies were discovered, approximately?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled on that basis. Go ahead and answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: There is no reason that I know of.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of only--with the complicated crime scenes present in this case--of only having one type of criminalists working all crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Do I have an opinion?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I would say it would be inappropriate.

MR. BLASIER: What would be the appropriate procedure?

MR. RAGLE: The appropriate procedure would have been to--would be to call at least a second team of criminalists.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the equipment that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung had available to them in their crime scene truck for examining for latent shoeprints--shoeprints evidence at the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of whether or not there was ever any search done in the dirt area of the Bundy crime scene for latent shoeprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, no foundation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: In the reports that I was given I found no evidence that that was done.

MR. BLASIER: And do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department in their crime scene trucks has equipment to conduct such an analysis?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Well, actually there isn't any special equipment needed to look for shoe impressions in soil, other than a flashlight at night.

MR. BLASIER: Is there--in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason not to do that at a crime scene such as Bundy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that is improper. It is contrary to the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the question?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there any reason not to look for footprints?

MR. RAGLE: No.

THE COURT: Next question.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, what techniques are available to look for shoeprints in dirt at night?

THE COURT: He has answered that already.

MR. BLASIER: What is the role of oblique lighting in examining shoeprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Oblique lighting is light at an angle and light at a sharp angle, so any indentations, and whatever it is, whether it is soil or indented writing or anything like that on a piece of paper, the shadowing accentuates fine detail so it allows a person to see something that could be very subtle or something quite obvious.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have two photographs that I think are actually entered in one form. Those are just blow-ups that I would like to have marked.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, this would be 1326 and 1327--

THE COURT: Excuse me. 1327 and 1328.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. The first one will be 1327, Mr. Blasier.

(Deft's 1327 for id = photograph)

(Deft's 1328 for id = photograph)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, Mr. Ragle, are there any advantages to looking for shoeprints at night versus in the day?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What are those advantages?

MR. RAGLE: The oblique light, which would be holding a flashlight at a very sharp angle in the dark, allows you to accentuate any fine detail much greater than if you had ordinary daylight radiating down from various angles and reflecting off other surfaces.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Is that also true for shoe impressions or residues on hard surfaces as well as dirt?

MR. RAGLE: Not necessarily with oblique lighting, but with other types of lighting it might be.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what has been marked as Defense 1327--Mr. Harris, I think we can do this up here.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 165, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: I would like to put up 1328 at the same time.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, can you see the two photographs we have put up?

MR. RAGLE: Not very well.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. You can step down and take a look at them, if you like.

MR. RAGLE: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: You have seen those photographs before, have you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And what is 1327 a picture of?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ragle, would you address the jury when you are giving your answers, please.

MR. RAGLE: I don't know which one is 13--

MR. BLASIER: The one on the left.

MR. RAGLE: Okay. This is a photograph of the glove and part of the pavement that was a sidewalk at Bundy, and this is apparently the hat and someone pointing their finger at this particular item.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony indicating that is Detective Fuhrman pointing at a glove. Is there, in your opinion, any legitimate investigative reason for having a picture with a detective pointing at a piece of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What is the standard procedure with respect to photographing items of evidence with respect to having people in the photographs?

MR. RAGLE: It is generally avoided.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: Part tradition and part it obliterates part of the photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Does having a person walking around a crime scene cause any potential problems as well?

MR. RAGLE: Certainly unnecessary.

MR. BLASIER: Now, 1328 is a picture--a later picture of the glove with an evidence tag on it. You have seen that one before?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, that misstates the evidence. There is no tag on it.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: With a number card--number card that says "102"?

MR. RAGLE: Next to it.

MR. BLASIER: Next to it?

THE COURT: All right. That is a photographer's i.d. number, correct?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I ask you to compare those two pictures to determine whether there had been any alteration of that particular area of the crime scene between the first picture and the second picture?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is cumulative. We have gone into this at length.

THE COURT: We have previously.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: I'm not saying I'm going to sustain the objection, but we have visited this issue before.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to be very brief on this, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, is it important, in the process of protecting a crime scene, that evidence not be altered or moved or picked up or replaced prior to the time of its collection and processing?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that important?

MR. RAGLE: For the reasons I expressed before; the integrity of the evidence is then in question, the potential of adding or subtracting something from the evidence that can occur.

MR. BLASIER: You can resume your chair, please.

MR. RAGLE: (Witness complies.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if we might display these to the jurors? I'm not sure they can all see them.

THE COURT: 1386, can you see those? If you want, Mr. Blasier, you can bring them up and display them in front of the jury box; however, these photographs have been displayed before. This is to allow the jurors to recollect and refresh their recollections as to these two items.

(The exhibits were displayed to the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if this might be an appropriate time to break?

THE COURT: Are you about to shift?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the lunch hour. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any conclusions about the matter until the matter is submitted to you, or allow anyone to communicate with you about the case. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. And Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Scheck, confer with each other on those other two issues. All right. Thank you.

(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995 1:10 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to join us?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. Very briefly.

THE COURT: You always scare me when you say very briefly.

MR. BLASIER: No. This will be brief. I will ask the Court for a little bit of latitude with Mr. Ragle. I know that some of these materials have been covered before. However, it's all been through our cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses. Mr. Ragle is the first person we put on as our witness on crime scene practices.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. BLASIER: The other point is, I intend to ask him questions regarding the movement of evidence, the envelope and the glove prior to collection. And I wasn't here on Thursday or Friday, but I understand that there was a bench conference where the Court stated that it was the Court's impression that there had been testimony explaining how those items got moved. We have--we do not recall any such testimony. I want to make sure that we're clear on what's in the record before I pursue that avenue. We have not found any reference anywhere to any witness explaining how those items got moved. That's our current understanding.

THE COURT: Well, that's not my recollection. My recollection is that we've heard testimony from the investigating officers, Lange and Vannatter, that there were certain items in place, that bodies were moved and then they were replaced and photo cards placed.

MR. BLASIER: I don't--we don't recall any such testimony.

THE COURT: Yep. Yep.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I mean, they acknowledged obviously from the photographs that the items were moved in some fashion, but I don't recall any testimony where they said, "Yeah, I did it," or, "He did it," and this was just to put things--

THE COURT: No. I recollect an explanation for that. But that's not to say that you can't have your expert say that's not a good idea no matter how it happened.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: For obvious reasons. But I just might add that the jury I think can figure that out. You don't think so, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: No. Rhetorical question. Let's have the jurors.

MR. SCHECK: When we can talk, we should have a discussion about what the record states and doesn't.

THE COURT: Well, I have a pretty clear recollection that that's already occurred. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we have some latitude on this?

THE COURT: I don't know. You have to ask Mr. Blasier. He's the one making the argument for himself, Mr. Cochran.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Ragle, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Larry Ragle, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Ragle. The record should reflect Larry Ragle is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Ragle, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions about latent or faint shoeprint or other impressions that might be left at a crime scene. Did I understand your testimony before lunch to be that the nighttime is a much better time to locate such prints if they exist than the daytime?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: If we're talking about a nighttime outdoor location, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what equipment is available if a latent or faint shoeprint was visible or was identified that way? Are there procedures available to make a record of that and preserve those prints?

MR. RAGLE: There are lifting devices that are available, static electrical dust lifting devices and there's ordinary rubber lifting devices that are available.

MR. BLASIER: And do those techniques allow you to preserve such prints so that they can be analyzed later or examined by any parties later?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department SID division has such equipment available to it?

MR. RAGLE: It's listed in their procedurals handbook, their--they call it their crime scene policies and procedural handbook or field scene, something like that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer is stricken. Jurors to disregard. The question was, do you know if they have the equipment, not what their manual says.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know if they have such equipment?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is that equipment that's readily available to law enforcement agencies everywhere?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show Mr. Ragle Defense 1071.

THE COURT: Which page, counsel?

MR. BLASIER: Well, I'm going to show him the manual initially.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Show you 1071. Does that appear to be the field manual that you were just referring to?

MR. GOLDBERG: There's no foundation that he can authenticate that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: This is the document that I was referring to.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important in your view for a crime lab to have a manual in place that sets forth procedures to be used by criminalists in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And there's been testimony that that manual has never been actually adopted, that it existed for several years and has never gotten past the first draft stage. In your opinion, is that acceptable procedure with respect to having your methods documented?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: Is it--the question is, is it acceptable to not have these methods--

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: --adopted?

MR. BLASIER: Not have any methods set forth in a manual that guides everybody on collecting evidence the same way.

MR. RAGLE: I don't understand the question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Have you reviewed that field manual, the portions of it that relate to evidence collection?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether certain parts of that manual state procedures, correct procedures that should be used in processing evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you one question about death notification. What is the standard practice with respect to death notifications in homicides cases?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections previously made.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do many of the suggestions or comments that you've made about inadequacies with the Los Angeles Police Department relate to the prevention or the detection of evidence tampering?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence. He didn't talk about any inadequacies in the department.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall when we talked about the five categories of processing a crime scene and what the general framework is, what your goals are in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how does that relate to prevention or detection of evidence tampering?

MR. RAGLE: The step that I described as documentation, all of that--all the efforts within that particular step are intended to maintain the integrity of the evidence, the identity of the evidence and to establish that only authorized individuals who either collected the evidence or in any way open the evidence or work with the evidence or record it.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with tamper-resistant seals for evidence items?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you followed the testimony with respect to the drawing of Mr. Simpson's reference blood and the procedure that was used to preserve that and transport it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you People's exhibit 163-H. That is a sample envelope that corresponds to the envelope used to contain Mr. Simpson's reference sample. Is that what that appears to be to you?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the procedure set forth on that envelope indicate that it should be sealed once the evidence--

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: What is the proper procedure with respect to sealing evidence at the time that it's collected in your view?

MR. RAGLE: With this specific item or any item?

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's take that item as an example.

MR. RAGLE: Any--anytime the sample is placed in a container like this and then transferred from one person to the other, the evidence should be sealed by the person who is the originator of the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the reason for having it sealed at that early stage?

MR. RAGLE: So that its identity and integrity is without any question.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it acceptable to place a reference blood vial in that envelope and have it remain unsealed for several days?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, calls for speculation. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Also irrelevant.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: In my opinion, that's not a good practice.

MR. BLASIER: What is your opinion as to the proper technique that should be used in terms of marking evidence as it's collected?

THE COURT: Isn't that kind of vague, because we have such a wide range of different types, some of what can't actually be marked itself, so--

MR. BLASIER: Let's take, as an example, the swatches that were made from bloodstains, and I'm going to ask you specifically about the procedure that should be used to identify those or mark them. In your opinion, what is the appropriate procedure to use once that item is collected?

MR. RAGLE: Since swatches cannot be actually written on, they should be documented by counting them, by placing--placing them in some sort of container where they will be dried if they're not already dry. Ideally, they would be either photographed or sketched and then they would be placed in a package and sealed; and in this case, since it's available, sealed with some sort of tape such as this tape.

MR. BLASIER: And, again, what is the reason for that?

THE COURT: I don't think we need to ask questions again.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: We don't need to ask questions again.

MR. BLASIER: Does the LAPD field manual that is not actually in effect provide a procedure for fully documenting the collection of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No authentication, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I believe it does, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with respect to removing dry bloodstain from various surfaces, do you have an opinion on the proper way that that should be done?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion? I mean, how should that be done properly?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the best way to remove a sample of blood from any dry surface that's not movable--the best way, if it's on a movable surface, is to move the surface directly to the laboratory by the process we've already discussed, the documentation, packaging and preservation.

But if it's on something that cannot be moved, the first attempt should be to at least evaluate whether or not some of it can be scraped off of the surface with a probe or with a scalpel blade or something like that so that the blood is left in as close to the same condition it was at the crime scene. If that's not possible or if only part of the sample can be removed that way, then the next step is to dampen something, either a swatch, the technique that's used in Los Angeles or at least by the Los Angeles Police Department, or a cotton swab similar to a q-tip, and to dampen that and then to apply that to the remaining stain or whatever is left of the stain until all of that is transferred onto the cotton.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there's been testimony in this case that wet blood swatches were stored in plastic bags. In your opinion, is that an acceptable technique to use to preserve blood swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: That completely misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: That is not a proper technique.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: It's a very hostile environment for any biological material to be placed into, first of all, any plastic bag, particularly when it's wet.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the proper procedure in terms of whether that--whether blood swatches should be dried right at the scene or dried later?

MR. RAGLE: It's my opinion they should be dried at the scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, again, with respect to documenting such things as bindles or containers with blood swatches in them, is it important in your view that they be initialed by the person who actually does the collection?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: If more than one person is involved with handling or collecting that evidence, is it important that both those people be indicated on the packaging material?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: We've had testimony in this case that the plastic bags that contain the wet swatches were transported back to the Los Angeles Police Department and then discarded. Do you have an opinion on whether that was an appropriate procedure to follow in the collection and processing of bloodstains?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That anything that contained the evidence such as the plastic bag should be retained.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: To answer any question that comes up later; was there anything in the plastic bag that could have interfered with any subsequent test, was the bag itself something that could interfere with any subsequent test, was there any residue of the sample, since it's placed in there wet, that could be of some value for further testing.

MR. BLASIER: Is preserving packaging material important if there's some question down the road about whether evidence has been switched or altered in some fashion?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if there's blood residue left on the inside of the plastic bags, can that be useful in testing whether or not a later sample actually came from that bag or not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You're familiar with the term a "Photo log"; are you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the purpose of a photo log?

MR. RAGLE: A photo log is like a diary. It's a sequential list of photographs that are taken at any particular event involving an investigation.

MR. BLASIER: And you have an understanding as to whether or not a complete photo log was kept by Los Angeles Police Department that documents the order in which pictures were taken at the Bundy or Rockingham scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any knowledge of whether or not a photo log was maintained for photographs that were taken at Bundy and Rockingham?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have some information.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not appropriate documentation with respect to a photo log was kept of photographs taken at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: From your knowledge of what was done with respect to creating a photo log, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was done adequately by the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. GOLDBERG: There's no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you attempt to locate a photo log from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the order in which photographs were taken at Rockingham and Bundy?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever seen such a log?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is such a log important?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it an acceptable procedure to process a crime scene such as Bundy and Rockingham without keeping a photo log?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Is it an appropriate practice to keep a photo log?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Specifically with respect to evidence items such as the socks that were found at Mr. Simpson's residence in this case, do you believe that it's important that a complete documentation be maintained as to when photographs were taken, in what sequence of evidence, items such as that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the use of videotaping or video cameras in the processing of crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: How is a video camera useful in processing a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's speculation unless he's used one himself.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with techniques that are used to document crime scenes through the use of videotaping?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, "Are you familiar."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those techniques?

MR. RAGLE: The technique of walking through a crime scene and viewing the scene through the camcorder.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does that serve some purpose with respect to briefing other officers on what is at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: That's exactly what I recommend in my teaching of crime scene investigators; is to use this camcorder, particularly the kind that has a viewing screen on it for a quick review. For people who arrive at the crime scene who want to know or who need to know what the crime scene looks at, rather than having them walk through the scene again and in adding any other possible changes to the scene, to view the scene on a camcorder.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the--what's the disadvantage of having--of not having a videotape to show other officers?

MR. RAGLE: Well, if they generally have a need to know, they have to go into the crime scene and walk through it.

MR. BLASIER: Why isn't just taking still photographs acceptable by itself?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he didn't say that. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's leading.

MR. BLASIER: Well, can the same purpose be achieved by taking still photographs at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: To some extent, Polaroid photographs taken at a crime scene because they're developed almost instantly. But regular photography requires, even if there's an all night one-hour service, at least an hour.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department has videotaping equipment available to it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony that the only scene videotape that was taken was for insurance purposes at Rockingham after a search was conducted. In your opinion, is that a proper use of the videotaping equipment that they had available to them?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it acceptable or unacceptable if a police agency has videotaping equipment available to them to not take any videotapes of a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: There's been testimony that Detective Fuhrman used the interior of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium as a sort of command post after he arrived at the scene. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate use of the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Misstates the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: There's been testimony that the inside of the condominium was used by police officers to either sit down and make notes or conduct briefings of other police officers. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is appropriate?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: It's compound.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: It's compound.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding of the use to which the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium was used by the Los Angeles Police Department at the time that they arrived at the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, irrelevant, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I heard the testimony of some of the investigating officers.

MR. BLASIER: And that was as to what?

MR. RAGLE: To going inside the condo.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that an acceptable procedure in your mind?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Acceptable." No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you see any--

THE COURT: Counsel--counsel, just focus in on the particular witness that sat on the couch and made notes, focus in on the particular witness who used the telephone, focus in on the particular witness who used the lights. Let's not--these are very vague questions, unless you want to narrow it down to the evidence in this case.

MR. BLASIER: With respect to Detective Mark Fuhrman using the inside of the condominium to sit down and write his notes, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was appropriate?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It is inappropriate to do that unless that area had been processed for evidence before that time.

MR. BLASIER: And why is it important that the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium be processed in any fashion?

MR. RAGLE: Because it is adjacent to and at least in my opinion part of the overall scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you aware of I believe it was Officer Riske's testimony, that he used a telephone inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium to I believe contact other police officers? Do you recall that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate action to take on his part?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That that was inappropriate to use the phone inside the victim's house at that time.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: The most obvious reason would be, if somebody else had used that phone that's involved in this situation, there could have been fingerprints on that phone. The other reasons are because of technology today and redialing. And, again, I'm not on my own knowledge, but testimony I heard, that there's other mechanisms on that phone that would indicate the last incoming call that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Motion to strike the witness' last answer.

THE COURT: All right. As to the technology regarding last incoming phone number, that will be stricken. Not supported by the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Well, is there--do you have an understanding of whether that telephone was able to store the last number that was used to call out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there's no personal knowledge, no foundation for that.

THE COURT: Overruled. But we talked about last number redial is what we talked about.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: And he's already answered that question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding as to the timing as to when the Coroner's office removed the victims' bodies with respect to that crime scene being actually processed?

MR. RAGLE: That the bodies were removed at approximately 10:15.

MR. BLASIER: And was that before or after that crime scene was processed?

MR. RAGLE: This would have been before criminalist Fung and Mazzola did at least most of their processing.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed the testimony of Detective Lange with respect to his reasons why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall him using a term "Close-in crime scene"?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to read from page 17638 and ask the witness his opinion of this explanation if I might.

THE COURT: Do you want to give counsel the cite?

MR. BLASIER: 17638.

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't bring my full set of transcripts from the whole trial.

THE COURT: Why don't you show it to him, please.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, I want to read to you the testimony from Detective Lange with respect to why the scene was processed in that manner and ask for your opinion about this. "Bundy was a close-in crime scene. The victims were close to one another. The evidence was close to the victims. A determination was made, as one example, to remove the victims prior to the evidence because of this. If the evidence had been several feet away or out in the street or something else, perhaps the victims would have stayed at that location while the evidence was collected. You just have to deal with what you have." Do you have an opinion on whether that is an acceptable explanation for why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Acceptable." No foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation for the opinion. Examination of the crime scene photos, appreciation for the proximities, you need a foundation for that.

MR. BLASIER: In forming an opinion that you have, have you considered the crime scene photographs that you've reviewed as well as testimony about the order in which things were done and the proximity of various pieces of evidence to the bodies?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion based on that as to whether Detective Lange's explanation for why that was done is acceptable or not?

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to "Acceptable."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It is my opinion that that is not an acceptable explanation.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: It is 180 degrees in opposition of how a close-in crime scene should be processed. The evidence that is nearest the body--you have to start from the outside and work your way in and you can't move--you could move the victim and you should move the victim obviously if the victim--if the victim's alive. I mean you have to endanger the evidence to save the person's life. That happens a lot. If there is no chance of that, then it's a slow methodical approach to the victims and it's the last thing you would do, would be to move the victims, and you should never move the victims over the evidence or have to move the evidence in order to move deceased individuals.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you examined photographs of the various pieces of evidence in this case and determined that some items of evidence were moved from the taking of one picture until some later picture, specifically the envelope and the glove?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance in your view of determining how that kind of movement of evidence took place?

MR. RAGLE: The appropriateness did you say?

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance or is there any importance to trying to determine how evidence got moved prior to the time it was collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, there is some importance to that.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that importance?

MR. RAGLE: The importance is--I'm looking over here. I thought the photos were still there--is that the--

MR. BLASIER: Would you like to refer to those?

MR. RAGLE: I don't think I need them. It's just that any evidence that is in the path of the movement of the deceased or the people--to lift an adult, it requires at least two people. So there has to be an intrusion into the very heart of the crime scene here, and obviously anything that is in the way can get moved or it can get stepped on or it can get altered.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with respect to trace evidence such as dirt or other trace evidence that might be on an item of evidence such as the envelope, what's the proper procedure to use to preserve that type of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: You're talking about loose material or--

MR. BLASIER: Any trace material that might be apparent on an item that's on the ground.

MR. RAGLE: Okay. I believe the appropriate material to remove any evidence that is fragile is to do it at the crime scene, to inspect the evidence, to determine if there's something that would be lost if you attempt to pick it up and put it in a container, and if that's the decision of the criminalist, to collect it there rather than take the chance of losing it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you talked a little earlier about the proper photographic documentation for items of evidence. Let's talk specifically about blood drops. Have you reviewed the photographs that have been made available to you of the--what's been called the Bundy blood drops?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not that photographic documentation that you have seen is adequate?

MR. RAGLE: It is not.

MR. BLASIER: And why is it not adequate?

MR. RAGLE: Excuse me. Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That it's not.

MR. BLASIER: Why is it not adequate?

MR. RAGLE: There are a couple of reasons. Every photograph of something like that that's close up--I think I mentioned this earlier--should have a ruler, and in the case of something like blood drops, should have a indication of the direction, compass or not the direction necessarily of the movement of the blood, but of north or some--some reference point so that a viewer later on can see this, the ruler can tell them the size, and obviously there has to be some other indicator or marker or number, an item number, something like that and then direction of north.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have a photograph to mark next in order.

THE COURT: This would be 1329? 1329.

(Deft's 1329 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I put this on the elmo?

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as Defense 1329. That's a picture of one of the Bundy drops that's been referred to; is it not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And can you use this picture as an example of how that was improperly documented at least through this picture?

MR. RAGLE: Only one of the items that I suggested a moment ago shows up in this photograph, and that is, there is a tag indicating a photo number. That's appropriate. What's inappropriate about that tag by the way is the placement of it, it is too close and is obliterating or at least--I shouldn't say obliterating--it is masking the area underneath the piece of paper. It looks like a 3 x 5 card or something like that, and that's too close. There should be-- it could be this close if another photograph is taken without anything in it, but what is missing here entirely is a ruler and a pointer or a notation that north is to the top or to the bottom, to the side, whatever the photograph is, however it was oriented.

MR. BLASIER: That's all.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, is it important to--when processing a crime scene, to preserve blood spatter evidence that might be on items in the direct--in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And are you familiar with blood spatter that appears on the gated area in the--surrounding the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?

MR. RAGLE: I've seen the photographs that were supplied to me, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the importance of adequately preserving that kind of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Eventually, a scene like this, there would be some attempt to interpret what happened, reconstruct the events; and all that cast-off blood or spattered blood, or whatever the reason that blood appeared there, could be used to determine what happened.

MR. BLASIER: And from the material that you reviewed, do you have an opinion on whether that aspect of the crime scene was adequately documented?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: What materials have you reviewed with respect to that area of the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Series of photographs that were supplied to me.

MR. BLASIER: And from the photographs that were supplied to you, assuming hypothetically that those were the only photographs to preserve that evidence, do you feel that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: --do you feel that the photographs that you were provided adequately document the blood spatter on that area of the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: We're vague because we don't really know what we're talking about here, which photographs we're talking about.

MR. BLASIER: Well, the photographs that you reviewed were what? What did they show?

MR. RAGLE: Referring to the--to the gate and to the railing?

MR. BLASIER: The metal fence that surrounded the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found.

MR. RAGLE: There was an assortment of photographs that showed various blood, what would be called blood spatter or splatter.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if that is adequately documented through photographs and measurements and any other means available, is it possible to attempt to reconstruct what might have happened in that area, at least partially, that accounted for that blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Well, that would be the purpose of taking the photographs.

MR. BLASIER: We have had testimony that criminalist Fung at the direction of Detective Lange removed the glove in the bag that had been found at the Rockingham area and took it into the Bundy crime scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body I believe to show it to Detective Lange.

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Restate the question.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the testimony that Dennis Fung took the Rockingham glove inside of a bag into the Bundy crime scene to show it to Detective Lange?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is an appropriate technique to use?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to appropriate. No foundation. Also, it wasn't a technique.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: My opinion, that nothing should be taken back into the crime scene from one crime scene to the other.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

MR. RAGLE: It's just bad practice. It--there's a chance that something can go wrong and contamination could occur.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed the testimony with respect to Mr. Simpson's reference blood, specifically that it was taken by Detective Vannatter back to Rockingham?

MR. RAGLE: I'm familiar with that.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not that was appropriate for Detective Vannatter to do?

MR. RAGLE: I have an--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague and overbroad as to appropriate.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: The same exact situation. I don't believe that any evidence should be taken from one location back into another location unless there's some, you know, extremely important reason, and I can't imagine any reason would be that important.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed Detective Lange's testimony with respect to why the hands of the victims were not bagged separately prior to the time that the Coroner moved the bodies?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your understanding of his reason for that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether or not it is acceptable in moving bodies from a crime scene that they--the entire body be contained in plastic as opposed to the hands being individually bagged?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: If I understand your question properly, it is inappropriate to not bag the hands.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: In any type of crime where there's potential contact between two people, there is the possibility of trace evidence underneath the fingernails, around the hands; and once the remains have been placed in a body bag, the chances of that evidence being contamination--contaminated by some of the victim's own blood which is going to be loose in that bag is obvious.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the appropriate procedure for when bodies are transported in a sheet or a body bag with respect to preserving the container that was used to carry the bodies?

MR. RAGLE: I recommend that that container be retained.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

MR. RAGLE: Because key pieces of evidence, significant material can fall off of the remains, off the clothing; and if it's in the bottom of a body bag and that body bag is disposed of, so is the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review the testimony of I believe it was Mr. Fung who testified that Mr. Simpson's reference blood was placed in a garbage bag at Rockingham to be transported back to SID?

MR. RAGLE: Did I hear that? Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review the testimony of Dennis Fung that he placed or that the reference blood of Mr. Simpson was placed in a garbage bag at Rockingham to be transported to SID?

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete. It's also leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. No. Inappropriate way to pose the question. Reference sample inside the gray envelope inside the garbage bag.

MR. BLASIER: The reference sample inside the gray envelope inside the trash bag. Have you reviewed that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: Have I reviewed the testimony?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I watched the testimony.

MR. BLASIER: And also, did you watch the testimony that Mr. Fung testifying that Andrea Mazzola, who was carrying that garbage bag, was never informed or was not informed when transporting as to what was in it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an acceptable procedure?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that goes beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: There are two to three different levels here. First of all, the bag itself is not in and of itself anything inherently wrong with that as long as it's a fresh bag. The container--this container I'm holding up, this analyzed evidence container that is used--

THE COURT: 160--

MR. RAGLE: --for blood vial should have been sealed and--

THE COURT: 163-H.

MR. RAGLE: --and it's--"Inappropriate" may not be the right word, but it's a big chance of giving something like that to somebody to carry and not inform him what's inside of it because of the fragile nature of a glass vial.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with testimony to the effect that the envelope with the prescription glasses contained within them, that at some point after that item was collected by the Los Angeles Police Department, one of the lenses disappeared?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with testimony to the effect that originally, there were two lenses in the glasses that were in the envelope that was retrieved from the Bundy crime scene and now there's only one lens?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: If it came to your attention that there was a piece of evidence that had been collected in one form and part of that evidence had disappeared at some later time, what is the appropriate response of the investigating agency?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that goes beyond the scope of his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It would be, in my opinion, that they should make an attempt to find out why some of the evidence is missing.

MR. BLASIER: You and I discussed the other day the concept of a team approach to processing a crime scene. Do you recall that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's foundational.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, we did.

MR. BLASIER: And does that tie into what you were talking about earlier, having the Coroner and the criminalist and the detectives working together?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that important?

MR. RAGLE: In a death investigation, it's important to have the three different disciplines involved in the investigation because of their varying levels of expertise. The detective or the police investigator has a particular function. The deputy Coroner is a--what I would consider a scientific investigator, has a specific function that compliments the investigator's knowledge, and the criminalist's job is to come to the crime scene with a knowledge of crime scene reconstruction, a knowledge of the types of evidence that they--that they can look for at different types of crimes and how to collect and maintain that evidence in as close as possible its original condition and in a--there is another person in this team, and I don't think you mentioned--

MR. BLASIER: And who is that?

MR. RAGLE: The field evidence technician or the what some people call the identification investigator.

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, do you have an opinion as to whether Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, given the manner in which they processed these two crime scenes, whether they were practicing criminalistics if you will?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, there's no foundation for that. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It is my opinion that they were not practicing criminalistics as it should be done at a crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: And how are you using that term, "Criminalistics"?

MR. RAGLE: As a forensic science investigator that is trained and is knowledgeable of the types of evidence, how they should be collected and preserved.

MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, assume hypothetically that items of evidence such as the envelope and the glove had been moved in some fashion. Whose responsibility would it be to determine who moved it, how it was moved and why it was moved?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation unless he's familiar with LAPD--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Also leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: The responsibility to determine that depends on the timing and when it's noted. If the--if the crime scene criminalist comes to the scene and sees something in one location, and a little bit later, he sees it in another location, it's his responsibility or her responsibility right then to try to find out why or who moved this. If it's discovered through some other method later on through photography, then it's a departmental issue and it would be either the chief criminalist or the director's responsibility to find out, you know, who is moving things unauthorized. And I'll assume this was unauthorized movement at the crime scene, and if--or possibly, the department's if they have that type of follow-up investigation somewhere else in the department.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, have you examined the--Mr. Simpson's Bronco in this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And I'd like to put up People's 197-A.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Have you specifically examined the area of the door sill, the bottom area of the doors, the front doors of the car, the area that's below the bottom of the door?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you--I want you to assume hypothetically that Detective Fuhrman testified that he observed what appeared to be some blood marks on the bottom area of the door and I want you to assume further that criminalist Fung examined the door sill area in an attempt to identify those marks and circled the three areas that you see on that photograph. Do you have that in mind.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, misstates the testimony as to Detective Fuhrman's testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I want you to assume hypothetically that Detective Fuhrman testified that he observed four brush-like marks that appeared to be bloodstains on the door sill area of the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Isn't the issue at this point, Mr. Blasier, whether or not one can see these blood spots that are in this particular exhibit while the door is open or closed? All right. That's why I stopped you. Ask him the question, "Did you see--did you inspect this particular area of the Bronco on this particular date and time with the door open and door closed? "Yes, I did. "Did you see this stuff here? "Yes, I did. Yes, I did." Isn't that the issue?

MR. BLASIER: That's the issue. But these are the marks Fung was sent back out to look for based on Fuhrman's statement that they were on the outside somewhere near the door.

THE COURT: I understand that. But the issue is can you see it if the door is open, door is closed.

MR. GOLDBERG: He keeps saying "Outside sill." I think he said out--the bottom outside of the door itself. So this whole issue is irrelevant.

THE COURT: No, it's not irrelevant.

MR. GOLDBERG: But they're also--

THE COURT: It goes directly to Detective Fuhrman's credibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: But they are misstating the evidence.

THE COURT: They are.

MR. GOLDBERG: The problem is, your Honor, with a lot of questions, they want to do everything in an argumentative way. They don't want to wait until closing argument to make the argument.

THE COURT: I know. That's the point I'm making if you were listening carefully to what I just said.

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought--

THE COURT: All right. I've heard enough. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, specifically with respect to--

THE COURT: I'm sorry. We're missing no. 1.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, with respect to the--on the photograph up on the screen, the circled area on the right and the two spots that appear to be circled--the top circle in the diagram, you have those in mind?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Based on your observations of the Bronco, the times you've looked at it, can you see those two circled areas if the door is closed?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, no foundation that the door was on it when he inspected it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Let me comment about this photograph first, if I may, because I can't--

THE COURT: No. You have to answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Well, can you tell from that photograph--can you get oriented with that photograph?

MR. RAGLE: I can get oriented with this photograph, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: And in my opinion, you could not see two of these locations if the door was shut.

MR. BLASIER: And which two?

MR. RAGLE: The one furthest--it's coming off the screen. The furthest to the right and then of the two on the left, the upper one.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, perhaps for the record, we should have those two--an arrow put on those two and print it out and number this exhibit our next in order.

THE COURT: All right. This will be 1330.

(Deft's 1330 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, do you have an opinion as to whether the bottom left circle would be visible with the door closed?

MR. RAGLE: I believe it would, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that arrows have been placed on the two circles which Mr. Ragle has testified are areas which could not be seen with the door closed. That will be marked as Defense exhibit 1330.

MR. BLASIER: Let me just clarify my earlier question. With respect to not the circles themselves, but the markings inside the circle on the two that have the arrow on them, is it your opinion that the spots inside those circles would not be visible unless the door was opened?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we just could keep that up for a second just so we don't have to waste time.

THE COURT: Sure. Good place to start.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Ragle--

MR. GOLDBERG: May I start, your Honor? Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Ragle, if you look in the upper left-hand corner of this, can you see the initials "DF" for Dennis Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: There's a little bit of a glare. Maybe we can move it--move it over a little bit.

MR. RAGLE: I see those initials, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was it your understanding of the testimony that this particular photograph was testified to by Dennis Fung, not by Mark Fuhrman?

MR. RAGLE: This photograph?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: As far as these markings, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And was it your understanding of the testimony that Mark Fuhrman's testimony was that he saw bloodstains on the lower portion of the driver's door as opposed to the sill?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, objection. His objection was sustained on--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when was it that you last saw the Bronco in this case, sir?

MR. RAGLE: March 14th I believe of 1995.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that when you made the examination that was the subject of the most recent line of inquiry by the Defense regarding the Bronco?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Had you seen it since then?

MR. RAGLE: No. No. I had seen it before also, but that--in terms of looking specifically for the shape of this area of the door and the--what would be the enclosed area of the door shut, that's correct. The door was not on it at the time that I looked at it, but the other side door was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at the time that you looked at the side that's depicted in this particular photograph, is it correct to say that the door had already been removed?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And so you're forming your opinion as to what could or could not be seen based upon your examination on the 14th of March without the benefit of having the driver's door in place; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I don't know if this is beyond the scope of your expertise. Please let us know. But is it your understanding from owning cars and observing cars and being a criminalist presumably doing investigations involving cars, that sometimes the alignment is different on one door as opposed to the other?

MR. RAGLE: That is indeed possible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Ragle, you've been critical of some of the procedures that have been used in this case to do the crime scene investigation; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am critical.

MR. GOLDBERG: We can take the photograph down. Okay. Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the Bronco, if blood had been observed on the lower portion of the driver's door of the Bronco and someone had thought that that was significant from a forensic science standpoint, if you had been out on the crime--at the crime scene as a criminalist, would you have wanted to remove that evidence at the scene as opposed to removing it at some later point?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what would the reason for that be?

MR. RAGLE: Because of the fact that you have to transport a car, under those circumstances, and unless you have an enclosed carrier, something could happen to that sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, just very simply, in the 14- or 15-mile drive or however long it is back to the print shed from the scene at Rockingham, there would be a great likelihood of perhaps that evidence towards the bottom of the door becoming washed off or somehow obliterated; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Could be very possible if it's--you know, they drive through water or something like that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And we'd be very concerned that we might not be able to find that later on; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's a possibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, based upon your extensive experience as a criminalist and also training police officers, is it your understanding that police officers have often submitted items for analysis at the laboratory that they believe to be blood that turned out not to be blood?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. Or not to be human blood or something like that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that when you're looking at a tiny little dot of a reddish brownish spot for the police officer who is not trained in criminalistics, it may be difficult to tell for sure whether you're really looking at something that's blood as opposed to something that's just a little dot of mud or some other material; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: So would you be surprised if a police officer were to look at a Bronco door and perhaps mistake something for blood that was not blood?

MR. RAGLE: That could happen.

MR. GOLDBERG: And it was your opinion that at least one of the dots of blood that we saw in the photograph that was just shown to the jury probably would have been or would have been visible from the exterior of the Bronco with the door closed; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I have no knowledge that that dot was blood. But whatever that is is low enough that it would be visible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to get into a little bit of your qualifications and your experience. Sir, did I understand your testimony to indicate that you were actually a police officer at one time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you ever achieve the status of detective?

MR. RAGLE: Uh, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you--

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I don't think he was finished.

MR. RAGLE: I just wanted to qualify that. At the time the city of Berkeley, and I think even today, did not have the position of detective. The-- each patrolman investigated the case that occurred on their beat. The only level of nonuniform investigators was called an inspector and they did not work in the field. They coordinated cases in the department.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you have occasion to investigate any homicides as a police officer?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you retired from the Orange County Sheriff's Department in 1989; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now you're doing consulting work?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that's primarily in laboratory design?

MR. RAGLE: In--and in management and needs assessment actually. That's probably more in line with what we've been doing lately than the laboratory design.

MR. GOLDBERG: How many public criminalistics laboratories have consulted you for the purposes of deciding how to redesign or build a laboratory since that time?

MR. RAGLE: Actually hired me or consulted me?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: Hired me, two.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, since 1989, how many homicides have you been the primary criminalist who was investigating the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how many crime scenes, homicide crime scenes since 1989 were you a secondary criminalist or assistant criminalist investigating that crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: How many rape crime scene investigations have you participated in as a criminalist since 1989?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Any major crimes or significant crimes since then?

MR. RAGLE: Uh, no. None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Any minor crimes where you've been the criminalist who was investigating the crime scene since 1989?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, between the years of 1976 and 1989, you were basically in upper management of the crime laboratory, either the director--what was the other position that you mentioned? It had another title.

MR. RAGLE: It's the same position, just a different title.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. Now, during that period of time, between 1976 and 1989, can you give us the estimation as to the number of homicides where you were the primary criminalist investigating the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, how many were you assisting investigating the crime scene during that period of time?

MR. RAGLE: Exact same number. None.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about rape cases? How many rape cases were there during that time frame where you were investigating crimes?

MR. RAGLE: Still talking about 1977 to 1989?

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. Yes.

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Major crimes?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Minor crimes?

MR. RAGLE: None.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you mentioned to us that you had written a book--not--excuse me. Not a book. You had written a chapter in a book regarding crime scene investigation; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the title of the book again?

MR. RAGLE: Principles of investigation I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, there are some leading forensic textbooks that cover the subject of crime scene investigation; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And some of those are Richard Safferstein's book called criminalistics. You're familiar with this?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you've relied on this in forming your opinions about crime scene investigation; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: You haven't?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there some reason for that?

MR. RAGLE: I don't have it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you haven't read what Mr. Safferstein has to say about crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Isn't he one of the leading authorities?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you've heard of him, sir.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do. I heard of him.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you're familiar with the book entitled forensic science and introduction to criminalistics by Peter de Forest, Dr. Gaennslen and Lee; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I read part of that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this is considered to be a leading forensic textbook; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: Portions of it.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. We'll get into that a little more later. And you've heard of a book forensic science handbook by Richard Safferstein; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I've heard of it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this is a leading textbook that's probably on the shelf of every criminalist maybe in the country; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: It's in our library.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: No, I haven't.

MR. GOLDBERG: You haven't?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, isn't this one of the leading books discussing forensic evidence?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you know?

MR. RAGLE: Because I haven't read it.

MR. GOLDBERG: You haven't read any of it?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, have you read Richard Safferstein's other book entitled forensic science handbook, volume iii?

MR. RAGLE: No, I haven't. I have read some of that if that's got a chapter in it by George Sensabaugh.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Mr. Sensabaugh has a chapter in Richard Safferstein's earlier book. Could this be what you're thinking of?

MR. RAGLE: If it's talking about the polymarker likelihood in enzyme typing, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. An earlier book dealing with conventional serology; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Well, we'll get to that a little bit later. Then the Richard Safferstein forensic science handbook, volume iii, you don't think you've read this; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: If it's not the one that has Dr. Sensabaugh's article, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: But isn't this also a text that would probably be found on the shelf of most criminalists around the country?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I'm sure it may be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you've talked a little bit about footwear impression evidence in this case; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you know Bill Bodziak of the FBI?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you familiar with his book called footwear impression evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you read at least the portions of this book dealing with crime scene investigation as it relates to footwear?

MR. RAGLE: I've read portions of it. I don't know what section you're specifically referring to.

MR. GOLDBERG: You don't think that you've read the whole--

MR. RAGLE: I haven't read the whole book.

MR. GOLDBERG: Have you read entire chapters dealing with crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And isn't this also a leading book that would probably be a reference that would be consulted by any criminalist who is routinely doing footwear examinations?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: They would probably have it on their shelf--

MR. RAGLE: I've sure they do.

MR. GOLDBERG: --as a reference?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, about five minutes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: About five minutes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are you familiar with Barry Fisher of the crime laboratory here in our County of Los Angeles?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you're familiar with his book, techniques of crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you read this book?

MR. RAGLE: Portions of it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation, Barry Fisher's book?

MR. RAGLE: I've considered it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you testified about certain techniques like the--I want to be sure that I understand the terminology you used. You talked about a technique that could be used to take dust prints off a substrate; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you refer to that as?

MR. RAGLE: It's in here. It's a static electrical device that lifts prints.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, the electrostatic dust print lifter?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it true at the time that you were processing crime scenes, that device hadn't even been invented yet?

MR. RAGLE: When I was investigating crime scenes, yes, but not while I was a director of the lab.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Your Honor, did you want to stop at this point you said?

THE COURT: No. Just finish out the half hour here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the Court said you wanted to stop at 2:30.

THE COURT: No. I did, but we go by that clock.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, okay. All right.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you also talked about this course that you've taught at Cal State Long Beach; is that correct, sir?

MR. RAGLE: Through Cal State Long Beach.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is this an upper division course for criminalists who are getting a masters or Ph.D.?

MR. RAGLE: I don't believe Cal State offers any such course.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is this a course that is primarily geared for criminalists or one that is primarily geared for police officers and a category of people that we've referred to as crime scene technicians?

MR. RAGLE: The course I referred to is the latter. I also taught a course that trained criminalists.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, I was talking about the course that you were referring to during the direct examination here.

MR. RAGLE: I'm still doing that. The course that I taught at Cal State Long Beach for criminalists, I no longer teach.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the course that you were referring to on direct examination would then be a course that is primarily geared for what we would or what you would use as a criminalist, what you would describe as a layperson?

MR. RAGLE: No. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question. Maybe you should--

MR. GOLDBERG: Is the course geared for what you would describe as a criminalist as being lay people, in other words, noncriminalists?

MR. RAGLE: No. No. I would--I would describe them as police investigators or crime scene investigators.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

MR. RAGLE: Now, some of them are untrained when they come to the class, if that's what you mean by lay people.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But do you consider a crime scene technician to be a layperson in reference to a criminalist who is considered to be a professional in the area of forensic science?

MR. RAGLE: No. I think many of the field evidence technicians and id people are professionals. Depends on their time and their training and their experience.

MR. GOLDBERG: But whatever they are, you would not consider them to be forensic scientists; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I consider them forensic scientists. I don't consider them criminalists.

MR. GOLDBERG: You consider police officers to be forensic scientists?

MR. RAGLE: I consider a person who applies scientific techniques at a crime scene such as fingerprint dusting, collection of--searching crime scene with analytical instruments such as the devices you're talking about or lasers or other techniques to be scientists.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, at any rate, police officers are not criminalists; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Some police officers are also criminalists.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, very, very few, right?

MR. RAGLE: Now days, very, very few.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And evidence technicians are not criminalists; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us--maybe if you can give us a minute-long definition of what an evidence technician is.

MR. RAGLE: Field evidence technician is an individual that is trained in documentation of a crime scene, of recognizing and searching for some of the evidence and collecting it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'll pick up after the break. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a brief mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. Come back in 15 minutes. We'll stand in recess for 15.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jurors, please, Deputy Magnera.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Ragle, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Larry Ragle is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Ragle, where we left off is, you had just given us a definition of an evidence technician. And is it fair to say that these people are people who do not have criminalistic degrees, but have received some training in how to go to a crime scene and collect evidence?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it true this these evidence technicians are used very widely probably throughout this country and police departments in collecting evidence at scenes, including homicide scenes?

MR. RAGLE: I believe every type of crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that's also true of the sheriff's department when you were working there; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: In fact, is it true that most of the field work that was done by the sheriff's department was done by evidence technicians, not criminalists?

MR. RAGLE: Numerically speaking, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that was mostly for cost reasons; is that true?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. Not entirely, but for the everyday type of crime scene. For homicides and other more complicated crimes, there very often is a type of evidence that a criminalist has had special training in. For instance, blood spatter interpretation, explosive debris, arson and drug--clandestine drug manufacturing laboratories that the id technicians or field technicians haven't had. So that's why they would--they, being criminalists, would go to the more complicated crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Where there was special types of evidence; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct. Special problems.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you did have evidence technicians, noncriminalists doing things like collecting blood evidence, didn't you?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you had them collecting evidence that would later on be used for hair and trace analysis?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you then analyzed that kind of evidence--I don't mean you individually--but your lab, and you presented your findings in court, even though it had been collected by an evidence technician; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it your view that that is acceptable from a forensic standpoint?

MR. RAGLE: If the evidence technician has been trained properly, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it also your view, sir, that even a police officer or a police officer is qualified to collect biological evidence that's going to be submitted to the laboratory for analysis?

MR. RAGLE: If they had been trained properly, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it also your view that a police officer would be qualified to collect evidence that's later on going to be submitted to the laboratory for hair and trace such as articles of clothing?

MR. RAGLE: With the same stipulation, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And although it is more expensive, would you agree that it is preferable to send criminalists to do the crime scene investigation as opposed to crime scene technicians?

MR. RAGLE: If the need is there, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting back to the issue of qualifications, sir, when I asked you about these various books that you--some of which you're familiar with or many of which you're familiar with or heard of, is the reason for reading these books, this kind of material is so that a criminalist can maintain current with what is going on in the forensic science community?

MR. RAGLE: Not entirely. Books of this nature are never really current because by the time they're written, new stuff has come out. Journals such as the journal published by the American Academy and by the--even the newsletter, the California Association of Criminalists and the journal produced in England, the forensic science societies journal in England are current. They're contemporaneous what's going on within the last few months.

MR. GOLDBERG: But it is important to read the literature though to understand what is going on in the forensic science community, what the capabilities are, what the issues are, how to do things, et cetera?

MR. RAGLE: A textbook like this, the type that you referred to, is particularly important for somebody who is being trained or being introduced into the field.

MR. GOLDBERG: And isn't it also true that in the area of crime scene techniques or crime scene investigation, there aren't a lot of recent articles in the journals with respect to how to investigate a crime scene because it's really not a hot topic so to speak in the forensic science community?

MR. RAGLE: They're more in the British publication than in the American Academy. In the American Academy, they have some case-related articles describing evidence at the scene and things such as that, but most of that is research.

MR. GOLDBERG: And since you knew that you were going to be testifying here about crime scene investigation, did you feel that it was important to review all of the key literature that's available on the issue of crime scene investigation in preparation for your testimony?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague as to what he considers key literature.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there are certain books and publications that discuss crime scene processing that are particularly well recognized; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And those are the ones that I asked you about here this afternoon, true?

MR. RAGLE: I believe so.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you feel that it was important to review all that material in preparation for your testimony on the witness stand here today?

MR. RAGLE: No, I didn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was that because for the $35,000, you didn't feel that this was--you thought this was just beyond the pale of what you were asked to do here?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: The $35,000 that I've been paid was to do specific functions, to attend specific meetings, to make certain observations. It had nothing to do with reading textbooks.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in the area of serology, conventional serology, do you consider yourself to be an expert?

MR. RAGLE: In doing the test? No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you consider yourself to be an expert in the area of the polymerase chain reaction test?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: In conducting the analysis, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are you an expert in the area of RFLP, DNA analysis?

MR. RAGLE: Again, in conducting the analysis, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you currently consider yourself to be an expert in the area of hair and trace analysis?

MR. RAGLE: In--I don't believe the basic science of hair and trace analysis has progressed much since I stopped doing it. There are some new instrumentations available, but I still consider myself competent in that type of an examination if I had the equipment.

MR. GOLDBERG: When's the last time--when did you stop doing hair and trace analysis?

MR. RAGLE: When I was promoted to the director.

MR. GOLDBERG: So that was before 1976?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So if this jury were interested not in a critique of what happened at the crime scene, but in trying to figure out what the effect was of crime scene processing on the biological evidence in this case, would you agree, sir, that you would not be the appropriate person to be able to tell us that?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, argumentative. And I'd like to approach.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you consider yourself to be qualified to tell us the effect, if any, that the crime scene investigation had in terms of the actual outcome of the DNA testing in this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. I do believe I could answer that question.

MR. GOLDBERG: You consider yourself to be qualified?

MR. RAGLE: To answer that question, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you rendered any analysis in this case about the actual test results and what they either show or don't show?

MR. RAGLE: No, I haven't.

MR. GOLDBERG: So what you've basically testified to here are things that possibly could have happened during the crime scene processing; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: In a sense, yes, but not completely. I mean, I'm basing that statement--the statement that I said that I believe I can explain, at least have an understanding of why some of this evidence degraded doesn't require an expertise in knowing how to analyze or to conduct the amplification process of PCR or the analysis of reading the results. I don't believe it requires a knowledge of the finesse of doing the RFLP. It is simply a question of my experience with previous cases where samples were stored in plastic while moist and the results of what happened to that evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: You are qualified to tell us that wet blood degrades more quickly than dry blood; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: In certain conditions, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: In certain conditions.

MR. RAGLE: Not in every condition, but in certain conditions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what I'm asking you, sir, is, if what we are concerned about are the actual test results themselves, this is something that you did not look into; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I did not review in any detail the test results and compare them to any other results, that's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you say that the person that would be most qualified to be able to tell us what effect, if any, the crime scene investigation had on the actual test results--I'm not talking about degradation, but the results--would be an individual who is an expert in conventional serology and/or DNA evidence?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Well, I certainly think that somebody who has more knowledge about the techniques could add to what I'm saying, but I don't think the basic statement that I'm making is any different.

MR. GOLDBERG: About degradation?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But I'm not asking about that.

MR. RAGLE: Well, what are you asking?

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm asking about the actual type of results themselves.

MR. RAGLE: When you say the "Type of results," you mean--you mean the specific answer?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. Would you say that someone who is an expert in both p--in DNA testing and/or conventional serology would be in a better position to answer those kinds of questions?

MR. RAGLE: About the results, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right.

MR. RAGLE: The actual--interpreting the dot blots or interpreting the autorads or things such as that and trying to explain what type of degradation or what degradation would do to affect those, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, for instance, let's say that we're interested in the issue of contamination. You're aware that some studies have been done on that issue, are you--aren't you?

MR. BLASIER: Well, objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, have you read any studies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the issue of sample handling and how it can affect or whether it affects DNA typing results?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I'm familiar with many of the programs that were presented at meetings that I attended at the FBI academy dealing with DNA handling and sampling, but I don't recall anything specifically about what you're asking. I mean, maybe you can amplify or clarify that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you remember a study that had to do with using different kinds of devices like scissors, contaminated scissors to cut swatches and people coughing over the evidence and various other sample-handling issues?

MR. RAGLE: No, I'm not familiar with that.

MR. GOLDBERG: You're not familiar with that?

THE COURT: All right. Gentlemen, I'm going to have to ask you, first of all, Mr. Ragle, would you allow the lawyer to finish asking you the question, and, Mr. Goldberg, would you allow Mr. Ragle to finish his answer before you start to follow up, please.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Take a breath. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's get into the issue of collection of evidence. We've heard a lot of testimony in this case about gloves, wearing gloves at a crime scene. Are you generally familiar with that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you believe that gloves always have to be worn at a crime scene whenever someone is actually at--on the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: It depends on the nature of the crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see a picture of what has been testified to as being Mark Fuhrman's hand pointing at a glove?

MR. RAGLE: I did see that picture, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And Mark Fuhrman's hand did not have a glove on it; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: You don't see any problem with that, do you?

MR. RAGLE: If--if that's all he did, was point.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the issue that has been made of people wearing gloves under those circumstances in this case is a false issue; isn't that true?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates his testimony. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, sir, if someone is actually standing at a crime scene and not wearing gloves, you do not have a problem with that, is that correct, even if they're pointing to a piece of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: In--uh, yes. I don't have an objection to anybody who is walking into the crime scene and just there momentarily not wearing gloves.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. In fact, did you participate yourself in a search of the Bronco on August the 26th?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it goes to crime scene processing, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you always--well, have you always worn gloves when you're at a crime scene and your hands are very close to a piece of evidence? Say--say that there's a spot of blood over here on this book that I'm going to collect. If my hand is anywhere near that spot, would you say that that is a situation which gloves should be worn?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. He didn't talk about gloves.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: The use of gloves for something like that and other types of evidence has evolved over the last few years. And so just to pick up a book even 10 years ago would probably not require putting on gloves. If it's a book--now, if it's a book with biological material spattered on it, that changes it.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. I'm not saying pick it up. I'm just saying if your hands are near it. I don't need to use gloves in that situation, do I?

MR. RAGLE: Depends on the--on what's going on at that time, what else is going on in the room, wherever you're at. I mean, for instance, in this room, certainly not. In a crime scene today, it depends on the nature of the crime scene, whether protective clothing, not just gloves, but other types of protective clothing should be worn, and it's a decision that has to be made by the crime scene team.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that mostly has to do with the fear of communicable diseases; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: As I said, this has evolved. That was the original concern that most investigators had, is other types of--you know, not the evidence, but them, they did not want to get contaminated.

MR. GOLDBERG: If you were searching a piece of evidence, let's say the Bronco, and there was some blood on the console of that Bronco, would you put your hand in the immediate area of that blood, not touching it, but within a few inches of it without wearing gloves?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I be heard?

MR. GOLDBERG: And you're also aware that a lot of testimony has been elicited about hair nets; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Hair nets?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hair nets?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Uh, I don't know specifically of hair nets.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or head coverings, things--

MR. RAGLE: Head coverings, I do believe--I don't know what--I don't know what you're referring to.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it your view, sir, that a crime scene investigator does not need to wear a hair net when they're at the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I actually recommend that at a scene where there is blood, that booties, hair net and paper--disposal paper suit be worn.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, if you were searching the Bronco, would you have worn a hair net?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, with respect to the picture that we have marked as Defense last in order--

MR. GOLDBERG: You didn't write a number on it.

THE COURT: Was that 16--I'm sorry.

MR. GOLDBERG: 1330. Your Honor, maybe with the Court's permission, I'll just write a number on the back of that. Oh, this is our copy. I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to 1330 for identification, do you recognize this photograph?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I can see everything except whose initials it is in the corner.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you present when photographs were taken of the Bronco on August the 26th?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: What day were you there? That was in March, wasn't it, of `95?

MR. RAGLE: I--both.

THE COURT: Both. All right. March of `95.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's all. No. He said he was there both.

THE COURT: I understand. But the only thing that was elicited on direct was March of `95.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And the reason that you indicate that people should wear lab coats or hair nets is to protect themselves; is that correct?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: There are three reasons. One is to protect themselves. The second is to protect the crime scene from anything falling off of them onto the crime scene, and the third is to identify them as one of the--and--one of the only four people or five people, depending on the situation, that should be in the crime scene. So, in essence, it's a uniform that if somebody else is in the crime scene without all this stuff on, you know they shouldn't be there, and as a member, you can tell them to leave. There are three purposes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. At the Orange County crime lab when you left, were people routinely wearing--

MR. RAGLE: At certain types of crime scenes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But not all types of crime scenes; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Not all types of crime scenes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Usually when they would wear lab coats and hair nets and protective garments, it was when they were using chemicals for the purposes of processing the crime scene; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: When I left, we were not doing PCR.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. I mean chemicals to enhance blood at the crime scene such as luminol and the like.

MR. RAGLE: When I was there, we didn't use any luminol. But basically your answer is correct, that primarily people were trying to protect themselves at that time.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what about booties? Is that standard at crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: It's becoming standard.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it standard at crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: I think it is now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are people commonly wearing booties at crime scenes at the Orange County Sheriff's Department?

MR. RAGLE: I can't answer that question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were they when you left?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you haven't been to any crime scenes that were in progress being investigated between the time that you left and today's date?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. A slightly different question.

MR. RAGLE: Have I-- I have not been to any crime scenes. That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you agree that it's okay to use clean cotton swatches for the purposes of collecting biological evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you do anything to try to determine whether or not the substrate at the Bundy crime scene, particularly the Mexican paving tiles, were appropriate for using a chisel or some type of instrument to chip the blood off?

MR. RAGLE: The--did I do anything? No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if the blood is partially absorbed into a porous surface, if you want to remove as much of the blood as you can on relatively small dots, is the cloth swatch technique an appropriate technique?

MR. RAGLE: I believe before, I said that it was, but I also qualified it by saying that, if possible, some of the samples--there should be at least an attempt to remove some of the sample without wetting it. If that is not possible, then some moist removal is permissible.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is it correct that you don't know whether or not it was possible to use another technique here?

MR. RAGLE: That's true.

MR. GOLDBERG: But just using common sense, is a dot of blood on concrete or a porous surface generally going to be difficult to scrape up?

MR. RAGLE: Difficult, but not impossible, because I have done it at crime scenes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But generally, it would be difficult?

MR. RAGLE: It takes time and more work. The swatch is quicker.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it okay to use distilled water for the purposes of moistening the swatches?

MR. RAGLE: It's required.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it okay to use clean instruments as opposed to sterile instruments?

MR. RAGLE: Sterile is not necessary.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to collecting samples and air-drying them at the scene, do you believe that the forensic science literature supports the view that you should always air-dry at the scene or sometimes air-dry at the scene?

MR. RAGLE: You have--you have to--to qualify that answer by of course saying what the conditions are at the scene. I mean, if the conditions are such that air drying immediately could contaminate something because of air movement or something such as that. Our--when I say our, the Orange County is equipped with a device that's sort of a protective device that can be used to put not swatches, but swabs, the cotton swabs in it, and air moves gently through it. So there's no absolute answer to that if there are some--some extraneous conditions. But my belief is that in this situation, that they should have been--they should have been dried.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, you said that one of the books that you consider in part was the forensic science and introduction to criminalistics; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Is that Dr. Lee's book?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And de Forest. Sir, do you agree with the view that sometimes it may be better to air-dry blood samples before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory?

THE COURT: Counsel, you want to show that to Mr. Blasier first?

MR. GOLDBERG: I have--I'm just asking him a question.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree that--

MR. BLASIER: Let me read it first.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have no objection as long as the whole paragraph's read.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I was only intending on reading part of it. If counsel wants the rest, he can read it later.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Well, I object to him reading part of it.

THE COURT: Counsel, you can do that on redirect if you like. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the view that--

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: "Sometimes it may be better to air-dry blood samples before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory. The decision about how best to collect blood evidence should be made by crime scene searchers in consultation with laboratory analysts. Laboratory analysts are in the best position to know what they are or not equipped to do and what kinds of samples they are set up to handle." Sir, do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. You know, taken out of context.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, would you like to see the context and perhaps--

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --read more of it?

(Brief pause.)

MR. RAGLE: Where were you?

MR. GOLDBERG: 245, the paragraph that starts with the word "Sometimes."

(Brief pause.)

MR. RAGLE: Well, may I read the few lines just before that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. If you'd like.

MR. RAGLE: It says, "Garments bearing wet or moist bloodstains must never be sealed in air-tight containers such as plastic bags." Well, a swatch is cloth and that's synonymous with a garment--

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

MR. RAGLE: --and it never has been bolded here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. But they're talking about garments in the first paragraph, right, the paragraph that you read, and they're talking about bloodstains in the paragraph that I read from; isn't that correct?

MR. RAGLE: They are talking about garments, but that's--we're talking about cloth, and a garment and a piece of cloth to me is synonymous. A piece of swatch is a little tiny piece of a garment in effect. And then to go on further, if you have some untrained crime scene investigators at a crime scene and they have a blood sample and they don't know what to do with it, it is very likely that why this author or these authors are saying this is that if the blood is moist like a--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there's no question pending at this point.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, you--he asked if he could read the rest of the paragraph. He's done that. Ask your next question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, does the paragraph starting with the word "Sometimes" simply provide in the first line that, "Sometimes it may be better to air-dry samples, blood samples, before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory"? Did I read that correctly?

MR. RAGLE: You read that correctly.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you know, sir--did you hear any testimony about how long LAPD has used the practice of using plastic baggies for the purposes of transporting the bags to the crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: If I did, I don't remember how long.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, if they've been using it for more than 17 years, would you say that they have a considerable amount of experience in this technique?

MR. RAGLE: They've done it a lot of times.

MR. GOLDBERG: And doesn't it appear to you that what Dr. de Forest, Gaennslen and Lee are particularly concerned about here is that the decision about how to collect evidence from a crime scene should be made in consultation with a laboratory analyst?

MR. RAGLE: Simple answer to that is yes, but I do need to qualify that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your qualification?

MR. RAGLE: What I tried to say a moment ago. If the people that are collecting the blood are untrained--and this is something that we fundamentally teach all the crime scene investigators that are nonscientists in terms of their background--if they have an issue about a question, you call your crime laboratory serologist and you ask them what to do.

And this is talking about calling to find out what to do, because if you got wet blood at a crime scene, it's still wet whether--I don't mean--I don't think this means, you wetted it, you made it wet. It was dry to begin with, you made it wet, you've made it wet again, that you don't dry it right away. They're talking about whole blood, wet blood. Whole blood contains all kinds of information that dry blood doesn't. Blood cells, for example. Blood cells are still intact in wet blood and it may be very advantageous to bring that blood into the crime laboratory immediately. And in those circumstances, would an analyst in the laboratory say, "Well, put it in the back of your truck for eight hours and bring it in then"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, would you agree that with respect to whole blood at a crime--first of all, do they say anything about whole blood anywhere in the paragraph that I read from or the paragraph above it that you read from?

MR. RAGLE: It says, "Sometimes it's better to air-dry blood samples." It doesn't say--it just implies that they're wet samples.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, where does it say "Whole blood"?

MR. RAGLE: It just says "Dry blood samples." They're talking about wet garments. They're talking about--they're not talking about swatches or--I don't see the word "Swatch" or I don't see "Swab" here. I just see "Wet blood on garments," and then they're talking about better to air-dry it, sometimes it's better to air-dry it, sometimes it isn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps I can introduce this page into evidence so the jurors can look at it themselves, but may I make a Xerox copy later on? It's page 245.

THE COURT: Not at this point. That's still a hearsay source. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, you did say that you relied on this book in part in forming opinions about crime scene processing; is that correct, sir?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you read any materials that were written by Dr. Henry Lee on the issue of collecting evidence for DNA typing?

MR. RAGLE: No, I haven't.

MR. GOLDBERG: You didn't read a document entitled "Guidelines for the collection and preservation of DNA evidence"? You've never seen this before by the FBI?

MR. RAGLE: Oh, I didn't realize--I believe I read that. I didn't realize that Dr. Lee was the author of that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: I'd have to look at that though to verify that I read that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'll let you take a look at it.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Does this refresh your recollection as to whether you read this?

MR. RAGLE: I can't tell just by looking at that. I'd have to--

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: Was there a cover with a publication date on this?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm sorry. Did you say that you recognized this or not?

MR. RAGLE: I don't believe I have read this, but what I asked you, was there a publication date? I don't see it. I don't believe I have read that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, would you agree that with respect to whole blood samples at a crime scene, that a clean cotton cloth gauze or cotton swab could be used to soak up the liquid if other equipment is not available; and if this method is used and a significant delay will occur in getting the specimens to the laboratory, the samples should be air-dried prior to submitting to the laboratory?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I would agree with that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any research in the scientific literature as to what constitutes a significant delay with respect to blood samples?

MR. RAGLE: Any literature?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain?

MR. RAGLE: You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree with the statement that once an adequate series of photographs has been taken, some or all, if necessary, of the sample can then be removed from the scene?

MR. RAGLE: Again, that's not quite totally clear, but yes. If--if--if an adequate sample--for instance, if it's a big pool of blood, you would probably pipette some of it up. If it's an individual drop, all of it should be kept--it should be photographed first and then it should be taken from the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you're saying that the sentence that I just stated to you is not really clear as to what exactly it means?

MR. RAGLE: It's clear, but it's not complete.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Well, sir, isn't that what you wrote in the chapter that was in the book that you participated in entitled principles of investigation?

MR. RAGLE: Could be. I don't remember what I wrote. That was 1979.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I can approach.

THE COURT: You want to show that to Mr. Blasier first? Mr. Goldman, would you show that to Mr. Blasier, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

(Brief pause.)

MR. RAGLE: Now that I see this, I think this is great. No. This is correct. This is describing a particular situation and it's complete for that particular situation.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the situation that it is describing?

MR. RAGLE: Where there is a sample of blood such as a blood drop, and I'm saying, "Once an adequate series of photographs have been taken, some," and then parenthetically, "Or all if necessary," meaning, if it's a small sample, "Of the sample can then be removed from the scene or"-- let's see what else it says. Want me to read the rest of this?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, does the rest of it have to do with how much of the bloodstain you need to collect? Is there anything else in there as to that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes. Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Then read it.

MR. RAGLE: "How the investigator choose to accomplish this removal will depend on how much material is present in the sample, how old the sample is, if known, where the sample is located and what it has been exposed to so far if known."

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So would you agree that with respect to a single dot of blood or drop of blood, there is no rule as to exactly how much you need to remove?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Would I agree that there is no exact rule?

MR. GOLDBERG: You don't necessarily have to remove the whole thing; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: For a single dot?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I think you do have to remove all of it until you are satisfied you've got as much as you can get.

MR. GOLDBERG: But that's not what you said in your book, is it?

MR. RAGLE: Well, there's no reference to a tiny little dot. This could be a huge bunch of blood is what I'm talking about. I mean, there's no reference to the size. I believe it's clear, as I said before, and knowing that I wrote it, that it is clear what is said there. But what I said was that it is incomplete the way you read it because I don't know what size bloodstain you're talking about.

MR. GOLDBERG: But the size bloodstain that is referenced in your book or in your chapter rather is a drop of blood. Isn't that what you're talking about?

MR. RAGLE: Again, I'd have to look at it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, when you just looked at it?

MR. RAGLE: I didn't see anything about a drop. I just said--I believe it said a blood--I don't know what it said anymore. I don't know whether it said a bloodstain or a blood sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I think it's in the record. So let's go on.

MR. RAGLE: But the point is--

MR. GOLDBERG: There's no question pending, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I think he was trying to explain his answer.

THE COURT: No. The question was, did he recollect that, was that in his writing. Let's proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, would you agree that with respect to crime scene documentation, that the purposes of good crime scene documentation is simply to be able to place the items of evidence in effect back in the crime scene to know exactly where they came from?

MR. RAGLE: That's certainly one of the reasons.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would you say that that's really the key goal?

MR. RAGLE: No. It's one of the key goals.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Well, what other goal is there?

MR. RAGLE: To--to begin the chain of possession, to begin the history of that sample, establishing that this is the same sample that was at the crime scene and I'm holding it up here in my hands right now in a court of law.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there any accepted practice throughout the country that in order to do that, videotaping the crime scene is necessary?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: In fact, would you say that as of today, videotape is not a standard practice at crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: It--it is regional, departmental choice. It's not--it's not a requirement.

MR. GOLDBERG: Some crime labs are using it in some jurisdictions and some aren't; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Some--you know, I don't even know if it's crime labs. I think it's the police departments that are using it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And there is no statement in a forensic science literature anywhere that you absolutely must, to be competent, use videotape at a crime scene; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct. I'm not aware of that anyway. Put it that way.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, with respect to the issue of trace evidence, do you--are you familiar with Locard's exchange principle?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that that when there is contact between two or more surfaces, there will be a mutual exchange of matter across that contact boundary and that in some instances, transfer of materials can result without contact; however, that's rare? Do you agree that that is an appropriate statement of the principle?

MR. RAGLE: The--I agree with everything but one word that you said.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which would be what?

MR. RAGLE: That you said "There will be transfer." I think there may be transfer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Or there may be transfer that's beyond our level of detectability. That's also a possibility; is that true?

MR. RAGLE: That's a possibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: But, sir, would you say with respect to the blanket, the most likely transfer would occur if the blanket were on top of Nicole brown, between the blanket and Nicole brown?

THE COURT: I don't know that that's an intelligible question. What happened between the blanket and Nicole brown, between means--you mean from one direction to the other?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there would be an exchange.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: If there was going to be an exchange between the blanket and anything at the crime scene, it would be most likely to be Nicole Brown's since it came in direct contact with her; is that true?

MR. RAGLE: I--I can't answer that question. I think for that limited part of the scenario, where the blanket is now on top of her, yes. But I don't know the history of what the people--what the people did with this blanket when they brought it out, whether they--whether they opened it up like a--like you would do a sheet or your own blanket when you're putting it on the bed. I mean, I don't know that. And so it would depend on the care they used. Assuming there's something on the blanket in the first place, that if they open it up and fluffed it around or straightened it out, somebody--it's got to be, I would imagine at least two people or four to get--to do this. So they--I can't answer the second part of your question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, would you say, based on the extent of your knowledge, that the most likely transfer would probably be between Nicole Brown and the blanket?

MR. RAGLE: Once it's in contact with her, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And were you aware that there were no hair and trace items or are you aware of whether there were any hair and trace items found on Nicole Brown of some probative value in this case?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that there is a possibility that bringing the glove into the crime scene could result in some kind of an exchange; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I didn't say that in a sense--I possibly said "Could." What I said, it's a bad practice and that it opened up the possibility of something bad happening.

MR. GOLDBERG: If the glove was never taken out of the bag, would you say that that possibility is so remote that it's not even worth discussing?

MR. RAGLE: It doesn't--it doesn't change my opinion about a bad practice. But if the bag is open and people are looking in it or putting their hand in it, that changes it. If the bag is simply opened, the chances of something jumping into that is obviously remote.

MR. GOLDBERG: From the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: From anything.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the chances of something jumping out of the bag into the crime scene again would be very remote, wouldn't it?

MR. RAGLE: Probably more remote.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, do you believe that it is a good forensic practice to wait until daylight to begin a crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: Not to begin it. But it's certainly good practice to continue it into the daytime or to return--you know, keep the crime scene protected and return to the daytime.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. The Barry Fisher book is one of the books that you considered; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: In parts of it, yes, but I respect Barry Fisher.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness for a moment?

THE COURT: Yeah. You want to show Mr. Blasier first what source you have there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is it--did Mr. Fisher in his book say that, "Unless it is unavoidably necessary," and in bolden, "Do not examine a crime scene outdoors until good daylight prevails"? Is that what he said?

MR. RAGLE: That's what he says, right.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you disagree with Barry Fisher?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, with respect to a summonsing the Coroner, do you believe that when the Coroner is summonsed is an issue that is subject to local custom; in other words, it differs from one place to another?

MR. RAGLE: I suppose that's obvious. Customs vary.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you agree with the proposition that whether the medical examiner or Coroner should be contacted as soon as the investigation begins as a matter of local custom, that many agencies wait first for the investigating officers to arrive and begin their investigation prior to notification of the Coroner's office? Do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: Do I agree that that's a practice?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: It is a practice, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree that--or is that an acceptable forensic practice, if you know, insofar as Barry Fisher is concerned?

MR. RAGLE: Here in L.A. County?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: That's a difficult question to answer. If that's their practice here in L.A. County, then that's what they do, and I agree with him saying that that's what they do here in L.A. County. I don't agree with the concept.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, do you agree with the concept that one should let a detailed examination of the body wait until the basic examination of the scene has been completed? Do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And so, obviously if you have to wait until the crime scene has been completed, then the Coroner is simply going to have to stand around waiting for an extended period; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Not necessarily. If they make their preliminary examination, which they should do as soon as possible, and then have other things they can do rather than wait for five or six or 10 hours, however long it takes, and then return and do their detail, as that refers to, detailed investigation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, as soon as they enter the crime scene, didn't you say there was the possibility of items being disturbed?

MR. RAGLE: That's true. But as--as the first officer and the first investigator and the medical examiner, they have to enter the crime scene, but they have to be trained how to enter the crime scene to do the least possible damage.

MR. GOLDBERG: But do you believe there are many people within the forensic community that believe that the Coroner should be kept out of the crime scene until the scene is processed?

MR. RAGLE: Do I believe that? Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And if that is the case, would it be reasonable to call the Coroner later on in order not to have them waiting for an extended period?

MR. RAGLE: I don't agree with the term "Reasonable," but I understand the practice.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, do you agree that the first officer at the crime scene after having established that the--that a death has occurred and making a cursory inspection, should notify his superiors and the appropriate people that a homicide has occurred?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you agree that it is advised that the telephone be used rather than police radio to accomplish this, as it is not uncommon for the press and other news sources to monitor police radio frequencies? Do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: You said "The telephone." I agree "A telephone."

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you want to take a look at what Mr. Fisher has to say on this?

MR. RAGLE: No. I agree with that. You said "The telephone," which is vague to me.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Let's not spend a lot of time on that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you hear the testimony in this case as to why the officer discovering the body decided to wait--excuse me--decided to use the telephone as to--as opposed to the radio?

MR. RAGLE: I don't remember specifically that--that answer, but, you know, that's not the point that I'm trying to make.

MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is it your understanding with respect to the telephone in this particular case, that outgoing calls would destroy any information contained within that telephone as to the most recent call or incoming calls?

MR. RAGLE: The specifics of that phone I don't know either.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the eyeglass envelope and the other items that were in the threshold area between the walkway and what we've referred to as the caged-off area--you know what I'm talking about?

MR. RAGLE: I think so.

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the eyeglass envelope, would one concern be, if it were in fact not moved prior to when the bodies were taken out of the crime scene, that any blood pattern on the eyeglass envelope could have been changed?

MR. RAGLE: I would expect it to be changed if they moved the body out while it's still there.

MR. GOLDBERG: And, therefore, any reconstruction that could be done on the basis of the envelope itself would probably not be very--would be less meaningful; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: It would require some more interpretation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And would you also say that if there were impression evidence on that envelope and that was the only place at the crime scene that you had impression evidence, that that impression evidence might be less probative as a result of the activities that occurred?

MR. RAGLE: Less probative?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would it be your estimation that that impression evidence, if that were the only impression evidence that you had, would be less usable for forensic purposes for subsequent analysis?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It would raise questions about the marks. I mean, I'm assuming that there's photographs before--I've seen photographs before the--while--while the remains of the victims were still there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: And any change would--if there was any change due to moving the bodies, could be accounted for.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldman, I need to take a--I've had a request here for a brief comfort break. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a 10-minute comfort break. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. Come back in 10 minutes.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Are we ready?

MS. CLARK: Can we just--

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. There was one matter that we wanted to address the Court about.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can we approach?

THE COURT: The jury is not here.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I just--it was about Mr. Ragle's testimony and I--thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Okay. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I wanted to ask him about his own crime scene practices, and since the only crime scene or anything remotely approximating a crime scene he has investigated in the last 19 years was the Bronco, I would like to show what practices he used in investigating it.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, don't you think you have already made the point, the fact that he hasn't been to a crime scene for almost twenty years?

MR. GOLDBERG: I want to show that he is not wearing a hairnet or a lab coat or he's not wearing gloves and his hands are immediately proximate to biological evidence in this case. I mean this man is--

THE COURT: When were these taken?

MR. GOLDBERG: August 26th.

MR. BLASIER: I didn't elicit any testimony about gloves or hairnets. He is working for the Defense. He wasn't processing this crime scene for the Prosecution. This is completely irrelevant. And I didn't ask any questions about it and it is beyond the scope and it is improper.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. 1, his competence as a criminalist is at issue. And no. 2, your Honor, he testified about his examination of this Bronco and his opinions about the Bronco, and this--these photographs are taken at the very examination in the Bronco that he conducted at which these kind of opinions were arrived at.

THE COURT: I see the door is on, too, at the time, too.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, on the 26th it is, but it isn't on March the 4th when he did his little thing with where the blood drops were.

MR. BLASIER: He only went there to look at it. That is what he testified about. It has nothing to do about what happened in August. I haven't gone into that.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not to impeach him on the door issue, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Then it is irrelevant, it is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: All right. It is beyond the scope.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Do we go to 5:00 today, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by our jury panel. Mr. Larry Ragle is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Ragle, with respect to the interior of the condominium at Bundy, were you aware of the testimony that inside the condominium there was no ransacking, there were no footprints that were found, shoeprints, no blood, no evidence of any struggle, no evidence of a break-in, and that there were items that were checked with the phenolphthalein test and no blood was discovered? Were you aware of all those things?

MR. RAGLE: I was aware of everything except the last thing you mentioned.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did you talk to Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola in this case before getting up to the stand to criticize the crime scene investigation?

MR. RAGLE: Did I talk to them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: No, I didn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you also testified, sir, that there was a possibility that the blood vial placed in an evidence envelope in a trash bag could have broken; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: It is in danger, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any evidence whatsoever that the blood vial actually did break?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any evidence that it cracked?

MR. RAGLE: Not that I am aware of.

MR. GOLDBERG: So wouldn't you agree that the whole issue is completely irrelevant to this case?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: That is a legal conclusion, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you aware, sir, that with respect to the items at the Bundy location there were photographs that were taken before and after photographs, if you will, documenting where the objects were originally and then where they were moved to; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I have seen two sets of photographs, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in fact the only reason that you know that objects at the Bundy location were in fact moved is because of the before and after photographs; is that true?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Ragle, do you agree that there are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing?

MR. RAGLE: I don't agree with that, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: You don't? So if Professor de Forest, Lee and Gaensslen said that, that there are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing, you would disagree with them; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And don't you think that they all have a little bit more experience as criminalists than you do?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you think that Dr. Henry Lee has more experience as a criminalist than yourself?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative; no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I--I don't think so. I mean, I don't really know. I don't know how--you know, what he does. He certainly has a lot of experience, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says.

MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, is your highest degree in criminalistics a bachelor's degree?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, do you think that Dr. de Forest has more experience in crime scene investigation than yourself?

MR. RAGLE: I have no idea what his experience is. He is, I believe, a--

MR. GOLDBERG: You have never heard of him?

MR. RAGLE: Oh, I know him. He went to the same university. I just don't know what his experience is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, have you ever written a book that is a leading textbook in the area of forensic science?

MR. RAGLE: No, I haven't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And the chapter that you wrote is not contained in a book that is considered to be a leading textbook; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: I don't consider it a leading textbook.

MR. GOLDBERG: In fact, to your knowledge is that book not even contained in the library at the Orange County Sheriff's Department criminalistics laboratory library?

MR. RAGLE: I can't find it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, umm--

MR. RAGLE: It was.

MR. GOLDBERG: They haven't replaced it?

MR. RAGLE: It is out of print.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, do you also agree, with respect to the issue of crime scene processing, that: "Of course perfection in this or any other human endeavor is never achieved, it is probable that no crime scene has ever been processed in such a way that hindsight would not allow someone else to criticize the work at a hear date"? Do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: I'm sure there is some truth to that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that is what you are doing here; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, vague as to--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, is it a correct statement of the record and your testimony in this case that it has been 19 years since you've actually been in the field as a criminalist and processed a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, Mr. Goldberg asked you several questions about whether you had processed any crime scene since 1989. Did you retire in 1989?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I did retire in 1989.

MR. BLASIER: Would there be any reason why you would be processing crime scenes after you retired from the sheriff's department?

MR. RAGLE: Not if I can help it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, he also asked you whether you personally processed any crime scenes from 1976 to 1989. Let me ask you this: Were you in charge of people who were processing crime scenes during that period of time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I was.

MR. BLASIER: Were you, as one of your responsibilities, involved in reviewing their work in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: In certain types of cases, cases were reviewed, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And in the cases that were reviewed can you give me a rough estimate of how many crime scene processing cases you have reviewed between 1976 and 1989?

MR. RAGLE: I really can't give you a number. In--there are two types of reviews that I was involved in. One would be periodic review of a homicide where everybody in the laboratory participated and it was more of a critique and learning experience. On a daily basis I met with the chief deputy Coroner and the chief forensic toxicologist, and on occasion the chief forensic pathologist, and reviewed cases for their completeness in terms of the issuing of the death certificate. So that included scenes that--crimes that included natural deaths, that included other types of deaths, suicides and accidental deaths, and that happened anywhere from two to eight times--eight cases a day for the entire time that I was the director, so I would have to have a calculator to figure out how many cases that involved.

MR. BLASIER: Are we talking thousands of cases?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Or at least hundreds?

MR. RAGLE: Hundreds.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked about certain textbooks and you mentioned references to several journals. I think you mentioned the American Journal of Forensic Science and the Forensic Society Journal from England. Do you subscribe and keep up with those journals?

MR. RAGLE: The journal that is published by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, yes, I subscribe to that, and as part of the membership in the California Association of Criminalists you receive the British journal.

MR. BLASIER: And do those journals contain articles about new techniques and state of the art techniques used in crime scene processing?

MR. RAGLE: In part, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do textbooks typically keep up-to-date on state of the art or new techniques used in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Textbooks are revised periodically and so, you know, the latest edition would have techniques that had been developed since the previous edition, so they are updated, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked--

MR. RAGLE: They are not--

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

MR. RAGLE: They are not as current as the a journal.

MR. BLASIER: You were asked some questions about walking into a crime scene and not wearing gloves if you were not getting close to the evidence. Is one of the important considerations that you've looked at in this case is whether or not people should be walking in the crime scene in the first place?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Can you think of any legitimate investigative or forensic purpose served by a police officer going into the crime scene to have his picture taken pointing out exhibits?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked some questions about gloves and the original purpose for wearing protective gear such as gloves, hats and protective footwear, and I believe you testified on cross-examination that originally that was because to prevent communicative diseases being picked up at a crime scene, correct? Are there new purposes that now exist for wearing this kind of protection?

MR. RAGLE: I mentioned the evolution of that, and yes, there are more concerns now with the samples that are being handled for certain types of tests, where trace amounts of materials are going to be detected.

MR. BLASIER: And does that relate to PCR testing where small materials are amplified?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any reason why you could not remove a bloodstain from a tile surface by scraping it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to what kind of tile.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Well, are you familiar with--have you tried to remove blood stains from tile surfaces?

THE COURT: Counsel, we have different types of tile involved here. You have glazed tile, you have Mexican paver tile that are porous, different types of surfaces, so your question is ambiguous.

MR. BLASIER: Have you--are you familiar with removing bloodstains from tile surfaces with porous types of tile?

MR. RAGLE: I don't have any specific recollection of that type of crime scene that I personally was at.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked some questions about waiting until daylight hours to process a crime scene. Did you indicate in your direct testimony that you should--that a crime scene should be processed during the nighttime, entirely processed?

MR. RAGLE: Not entirely. What I indicated is that there are a lot of things that can be done because it is dark, it is advantageous to do certain types of things in the dark.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to not call a criminalist when you have a crime scene that is at nighttime?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any legitimate investigative or forensic purpose for--when you are dealing with small bloodstains, to not remove the entire stain?

MR. RAGLE: There is--there is no reason not to remove the entire stain, you know, as much as physically possible.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked some questions about the practice in Los Angeles County to not call the Coroner for whatever period of time. Do you agree that with that--let me rephrase that. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is a proper practice?

MR. RAGLE: In my opinion it is not a proper practice.

MR. BLASIER: You were asked a question about use of the telephone. Do you know of anyone, any textbook, any source, any police source whatsoever that would suggest that where you have a crime scene with a victim murdered outside her front door that it is okay to use her phone to call in the station?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know of any--anybody that would recommend that or of any printed recommendation.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked to review a portion of Dr. Lee's book, page 245. I would like you to look at this again.

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence as to whose book it is.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. de Forest, Mr. Gaensslen and Dr. Lee.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you page 245 and ask you to look at the top part of the page prior to the paragraph you were asked to read. What is your understanding of what that is--that particular paragraph or the first part of the paragraph that was read to you, what does that apply to?

MR. RAGLE: It applies to blood that is still wet or clotted and it indicates that this blood is easier to type than dry blood.

MR. BLASIER: Does that refer to any--any type of stains that have already dried and then the police make them wet?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it calls for a conclusion and speculation. He can read what is there.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: May I read?

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, ask your next question.

MR. BLASIER: Does that refer in any--anywhere on that page or in that section--to stains that are already dry that the police make wet by virtue of the way--the method they use to collect the blood?

MR. RAGLE: One moment?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. RAGLE: No, it does not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I would like to read to you the last part of that paragraph that Mr. Goldberg read you the first part of and ask you if you agree with this: "Careful documentation of a crime scene is essential before"--

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't go into documentation.

MR. BLASIER: "Careful documentation of a crime scene is essential before beginning to collect evidence. Without documentation of what samples came from where, the serological results will not be of much help in reconstruct can the event. All samples should be placed in appropriate containers and carefully labeled. Blood evidence should be taken to the laboratory as soon as possible after it is collected. The older a dried stain becomes, the fewer are the individualizing--individualizing characteristics that can be tested for in the samples, and the less information will be obtained. Storage of dry blood samples at refrigerator or freezer temperatures often greatly extends the period of stability (And thus typability) of the genetic marker systems." Do you agree with that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You were asked the questions that there are two sets of photographs which reveal that some pieces of evidence, the envelope and the glove were removed at some point. Do you recall that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I recall that.

MR. BLASIER: Does the fact that there are two sets of photographs assist you in anyway whatsoever in determining how they got from one position to the other, whether or not they were picked up and placed in a new position or who did that?

MR. RAGLE: The photographs do not, no.

MR. BLASIER: Have any materials been provided to you at all indicating that any effort was ever made to try and make that determination?

MR. RAGLE: I have not seen any documentation at all.

MR. BLASIER: That is all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I have a moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, excuse me, I do have one more question if I might. Just one.

THE COURT: I already wrote "Recross" on my notes.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, would you expect that a trained criminalist would be able to see bloodstains on the outside of the Bronco?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: In examining the Bronco on the 14th would be able to see if there were any bloodstains on the outside of the door toward the bottom?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: That is all I have.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, are you repaired to cite to this jury any reference in the forensic science literature for the proposition that items should always be air dried at the scene when the cloth swatch technique was used to collect a dry stain?

MR. RAGLE: Am I prepared to tell you where to look this up? Is that what you are asking? A printed reference?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. Did you bring a citation with you where you can say this person on this date and this journal wrote that when you use the cloth swatch technique you must always air dry at the scene?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know of any. What we just read in Dr. Lee and the other author's books I think said that, and I believe there was something in the book you read from from doctor--from Barry Fisher, but I don't know if it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, can you point out for us where?

THE COURT: Wait, wait. You guys are talking at the same time. Let him finish his answer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: I don't know if it used the word "Always."

MR. GOLDBERG: In fact they said "Sometimes," right?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: That was the only word that they used with respect to air drying, sometimes you should?

MR. RAGLE: And I believe when you asked me that question before, when you said "Sometimes," I said it depends on the timing and the circumstances.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, what I'm asking you, and I will ask you again, is can you cite for us a single reference that specifically says that when you use the cloth swatch technique at a crime scene to collect a dried stain you must air dry it at the scene?

MR. RAGLE: No, I don't have any specific reference.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree, sir, also, with the proposition that if we look at the forensic science literature and the textbooks as to how a crime scene should be processed, that we could find a variety of opinions on a variety of issues?

MR. RAGLE: Not the basics. In various--I'm sure various authors under certain conditions would recommend some things, but the basic things that I indicated when we began this morning, the--I believe there were five basic rules, and I call those rules, absolutely required functions that must be done at a crime scene always have to occur. If they don't, you have a faulty crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Exactly. Those four things must occur?

MR. RAGLE: Five.

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought you said four. Recognition, collection, packaging and then what was the final one that you had mentioned?

MR. RAGLE: Documentation and preservation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. RAGLE: Preservation.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. As to the items that you referred, although we can find references to those five categories being musts, in terms of how to perform each one of those five categories, can we find differences between recognized forensic scientists in the literature?

MR. BLASIER: I object. That is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I'm sure that if you looked at enough different books you would find some variations, but not--not--they are all focused towards the same common goal and that is to get the most information from the crime scene and to preserve the evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Of course, but we could find some variation in terms of how best to document the scene, couldn't we?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I don't know who brought it up, but the videotaping is an example.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

MR. RAGLE: Some--some departments prefer to do--to do still photography and videotaping.

MR. GOLDBERG: And some don't do either, right?

MR. RAGLE: Oh, I don't know of any that doesn't photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: At small crime scenes there are some that don't take any photographs aren't there?

MR. RAGLE: In malicious mischief type of crime scenes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or even in some low grade felonies; isn't that true?

THE COURT: Not particularly relevant to this case.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, isn't it also true that in the area of identifying how best to identify evidence at a crime scene in terms of the techniques to use, there may also be some variation in the forensic literature?

MR. RAGLE: I don't understand the first part of your question.

MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of what specific technique to use in order to find evidence at a crime scene, there are some differences in the literature, aren't there?

MR. BLASIER: Object. That is vague. He is talking about a specific process.

THE COURT: I think we have sort of gone around this for a while.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. There was one other thing that I want to get into, but it would require us to approach.

THE COURT: All right. At the side bar.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it seems that counsel has clearly opened the issue of under what conditions you should be wearing gloves, hat and protective clothing and saying that no it is not just for protecting yourself, it is also for protecting the evidence and it has evolved over time and so on and so forth. And it seems like such probative evidence to say here is what you do and put him on.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: He testified to that and he was led into an answer regarding PCR testing.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: He was led into an answer concerning PCR testing and that those issues are even more necessary these days because of the sensitivity of PCR testing is what he said.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

THE COURT: My question to you is on this particular date in question was the console still in the Bronco and was it still subject to evidence collection for PCR testing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. It was. That was the day, your Honor, that the console was removed from the Bronco by Michele Kestler and people working under her for purposes of PCR testing. And it was in there and it is in the photographs very clearly and his hand is right near that very area where 303, 304 and 305 came from.

THE COURT: What does to tell me? What does that tell me?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, I brought up the wrong photo here. Can I--

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Okay. I recollect the two--I recollect the two photographs which show Mr. Ragle leaning into the Bronco or holding the rule for a photograph of something on the driver's side door panel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Interior.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of time, this will take me about a minute.

MR. BLASIER: It is going to take a lot more.

MR. GOLDBERG: For me.

MR. BLASIER: He is not processing this crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: He is a criminalist who is working there.

THE COURT: Well, why was it necessary to ask those questions? I'm just curious.

MR. BLASIER: Ask which questions? I didn't bring it up. I responded to him on cross. He was talking about gloves.

THE COURT: Well, the problem is you led him into an answer that had to do with sensitivity of PCR testing and why you wear protective clothing.

MR. BLASIER: Because he wouldn't let him explain the gloves and how originally it was to protect yourself and from disease and that has changed, that has evolved. Because he wouldn't let him do that, I did that.

MR. GOLDBERG: He answered that. He gave that answer.

MR. BLASIER: After I asked him.

MR. GOLDBERG: He gave that on cross.

THE COURT: All right. You have five minutes to do this. I will overrule the objection.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, with alacrity.

MR. GOLDBERG: I will. I want to mark as People's next in order what appears to be a photograph of the witness.

THE COURT: 589.

(Peo's 589 for id = photograph)

MR. GOLDBERG: And I wrote 589 on the rear. May I put that on the elmo, your Honor? It seems to be washed out.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Can we get--

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, on August the 26th, while we are waiting for them to focus on this photograph, you participated with the Los Angeles Police Department in a search at the keystone tow facility that involved the Bronco; is that correct?

MR. RAGLE: On August 26th, yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can't we get it in any better than that?

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, in this photograph can you see yourself leaning into the Bronco?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, with the Court's permission maybe we could just pass this around after I finish my questions?

THE COURT: No, I don't think so.

MR. GOLDBERG: As you are leaning into the Bronco, sir, is your hand in very close proximity to the rear of the console that is still in the Bronco?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware that that console was removed from the Bronco on this date and that it was subsequently subject to PCR testing?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you wearing a glove?

MR. RAGLE: No, I'm not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you wearing any lab coat?

MR. RAGLE: No, that is a shirt.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you wearing any hairnet?

MR. RAGLE: No, I'm not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Nothing further.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, were you processing the Bronco for any evidence yourself that day?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you touch or grab the console in any fashion?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Were you being closely watched by police officers as well as Michele Kestler?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: During the entire time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ragle, you may step down. Thank you very much, sir. Tomorrow morning?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon at this point. However, before we do that, I just wanted to bring up one matter. Mr. Bancroft?

MR. BANCROFT: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Three times today I noticed the camera moving and I observed on three occasions jurors looking up at the camera as it was moving because of the amount of noise it is making, so it either needs to be lubricated and quieted down, because if it is distracting the jurors by swinging back and forth, it is going to go.

MR. BANCROFT: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else, counsel?

MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor. I think not.

THE COURT: All right. As far as the jury is concerned then, please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, may we approach a minute?

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(At 4:45 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, August 22, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) No. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, August 21, 1995 volume 209

Pages 42222 through 42455, inclusive

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

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Matthew Schwartz, Esquire Ron Regwan, Esquire

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

I N D E X

Index for volume 209 pages 42222 - 42455

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

Day date session page vol.

Monday August 21, 1995 A.M. 42222 209 P.M. 42307 209

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

PROCEEDINGS

Motion re nighttime crime scene view 42222 209 (Withdrawn)

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

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

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

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

Defense witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Ragle, John 42258bb 209 Larry (Resumed) 42312bb 42358gb 42433bb 42443gb (Further) 42453bb

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Ragle, John 42258bb 209 Larry (Resumed) 42312bb 42358gb 42433bb 42443gb (Further) 42453bb

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

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

589 - Photograph 42451 209 of John Ragle and an individual taking pictures inside a vehicle

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

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1326-A & 1326-B - 42278 209 slide presentation entitled "Crime scene processing" and "Chronology"

1327 - Photograph 42300 209 of an individual pointing to a glove and knit cap on the ground at the Bundy crime scene

1328 - Photograph 42300 209 of a close-up view of a glove on the ground with the no. 102

1329 - Photograph 42337 209 of a red spot on the ground with the no. 112 at the crime scene

1330 - Photograph 42356 209 of the side board on a white vehicle with three circles and two arrows