REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 4, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996
8:40 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

MR. LAMBERT: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. PETROCELLI: Couple of housekeeping items.

Mr. Lambert will address the court.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

One thing this morning, we intend to read into evidence some requests for
admissions. And what I've done, Your Honor, is, I have them set forth in little
packets, one each for a question and an answer, which I'll read to the jury.

And I would ask the Court to also let us mark those as exhibits so they can
become part of the record of the case.

Secondly, Your Honor, in regard to presumptive blood tests, I know we've set a
hearing for that before tomorrow morning on our two points of waiver and, if
necessary, Kelly Frye.

I just want to alert the Court to the fact that one of the witnesses who will
testify today, Dennis Fung, is the person who would ultimately testify to doing
some presumptive blood tests. So I would simply ask the Court to allow me to
reopen with Dennis, if the Court decides tomorrow morning that presumptive
tests will be allowed into evidence, and I'll put him back on for that limited
purpose then.

It is also my understanding from the defense's position, that the only thing
they object to are positive presumptive tests where there is no subsequent
confirming test; that is, any other evidence relating to presumptive tests is
acceptable if they're agreed, that is.

MR. BLASIER: That's correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Finally, Your Honor, I want to put -- I'm going to put on Greg
Matheson before Dennis Fung. It's slightly out of order, but Mr. Matheson has
some scheduling problems, and so I'll put him on, and then Dennis Fung.

THE COURT: Can I get a witness schedule?

MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Aren't you supposed to be providing opposing party with a schedule
of witnesses 48 hours ahead of time.

MR. LAMBERT: I've given them all the witnesses.

THE COURT: You gave me the first list; you didn't give me one after that.

MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't provide one to the Court. I will do so.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MR. LAMBERT: That's it for me.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry; one other thing while they're coming in with regard to
the end of the day Friday with Detective Vannatter. There were two exhibits
that had been stipulated as to their admissibility already. I just want to move
those in. And they were 387 and 721.

THE COURT: They're received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 387, Coroner's Report,
was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 721, Coroner's SID
Sign-in sheets, was received in evidence.)

MR. GELBLUM: The first witness will be a minute and a half. He is tow-truck
driver named Bernie Douroux, who is unavailable. We intend to read a portion of
his criminal trial testimony.

I'd like to have Mr. Foster read the answers and I'll read questions, and that
way -- if that's acceptable to the Court.

THE COURT: Okay. If there's no objection.

MR. BAKER: I'd like something showing that he's unavailable. I haven't seen any
showing that he's unavailable.

MR. GELBLUM: I have a declaration.

MR. BAKER: Let me see it.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: Which witness?

MR. GELBLUM: Bernie Douroux, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: The only thing I don't see in here, he was apparently served with a
subpoena when he was supposed to be here.

MR. GELBLUM: The subpoena, I believe, was possibly for the first day of trial:

MR. BAKER: A body attachment ought to issued for this man. This is not --

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, this is literally a minute and a half,
chain-of-custody witness. I don't think there's any doubt about any of his
testimony. We ought to be able to read it in.

MR. BAKER: I see. The form, since it's short, we can disregard the law; that's
a good idea.

MR. GELBLUM: I think we established his unavailability, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if he's going to read that, we want to read the
cross-examination.

THE COURT: I haven't even finished reading this thing --

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: -- you know.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BAKER: A body attachment ought to issued for him if he's unavailable, if
he's been served with a subpoena, in violation of the subpoena.

MR. GELBLUM: We're prepared to go ahead today. We did what we could do.

I think all the law requires us to do is serve him a subpoena, try to get him
here. As the declaration established, we couldn't get him here. That makes him
unavailable under the code and allows us to bring him in under the hearsay rule
for prior testimony.

We have no objection to them reading in anything, as long as it's not
objectionable.

THE COURT: All right; you may do so.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JUROR: Good morning.

THE COURT: I appreciate the fact that you all get up so early and get to the
court building on time. As often happens, the attorneys want to discuss some
things out of your presence, and they generally deal with matters of law, and
they are matters that should not be discussed in your presence.

For that reason, we occasionally have to start late, like we are starting late
today; so I apologize for that.

All right. Plaintiff may proceed.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, as you know, we are going to begin by reading in some
trial testimony from the criminal trial, of a man named Bernie Douroux.

To make it a little easier for the jury to follow, we're going to ask our
associate, Mr. Foster, to take the stand and read the responses.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he was -- Mr. Douroux obviously was sworn in at the
criminal trial. I don't know if you want to do that with Mr. Foster here on the
stand.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is testimony given at the previous trial;
it was given under oath, and you're to treat it just as though that person was
called, sworn and testified.

Go ahead.

(The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr.
Gelblum reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.)

"Q. Can you spell your first and last names for the record.

A. Bernie Douroux, B-E-R-N-I-E D-O-U-R-O-U-X.

Q. Mr. Douroux, who were you working for on June 13, 1994?

A. Rheuban Motors.

Q. And Rheuban Motors is a towing -- automobile towing company?

A. It's a police impound, yes.

Q. And what do you do for Rheuban Motors?

A. Impound vehicles at LAPD, to request have impounded or private towing.

Q. On the afternoon of June 13, at around 3:06 p.m., did you receive a radio
call from your dispatcher?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And after receiving that radio call, did you go somewhere?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did you go?

A. 360 Rockingham.

Q. Why did you go to 360 Rockingham?

A. We were asked by LAPD to pick up a vehicle.

Q. And what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. Approximately 3:30.

Q. And did you speak to a police officer at that location?

A. I spoke to a couple of them, yes.

Q. Were you given any instructions?

A. Yes, I did. Yes, I was.

Q. What instructions were you given by the officers?

A. Not to touch the vehicle, not to open it, and to take it downtown.

Q. And were you directed toward a certain vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. To a certain vehicle?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what vehicle was that?

A. Ford Bronco.

Q. Okay. The Ford Bronco that's been on --

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you tow that Ford Bronco?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you touch it prior to hooking it up to your tow truck?

A. Not prior, but after I hooked it up, I did touch the front right tire, to
make sure it was locked -- the steering column was locked.

Q. Can you tell whether or not the Ford Bronco was locked?

A. Yes, it was locked, because it had little -- the buttons were down on the
Bronco.

Q. It was locked when you first saw it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you unlock that vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. And did you tow that vehicle?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Where did you tow the Ford Bronco to?

A. To Parker Center, to the print shed, over here.

Q. To Parker Center, over here on Los Angeles Street?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. To the print shed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time, sir, did you leave Rockingham with the Bronco?

A. Approximately 3:40.

Q. And what time did you arrive downtown at Parker Center, if you know?

A. Took me about an hour to get there. To probably -- probably about 4:40,
4:30."

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Cross.

(The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr.
Gelblum reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.)

MR. P. BAKER: Page 26269, line 9 -- we're at line -- through line 13.

"Q. With regard to your towing of this vehicle, as I understand it, this took
place on or about June 13, 1994 in the afternoon; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what time you received
a call in response to this, sir?

A. We received a call in the mike room -- LAPD mike room at approximately 3:06.

Q. Then you responded to that call and arrived at the location on Rockingham?

A. Yes, sir, around 3:31.

Q. All right. Around 3:31 in the afternoon?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you got to that location, was the media present at that time, sir?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And did you see a lot of media there?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. While you were there at Rockingham, did you ever see a lady walk up or run
up and touch this vehicle while you were there?

A. I -- not myself, no.

Q. You never saw that personally?

A. No.

Q. Did you become aware of that at some point?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. So you learned about it afterwards; is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. With regards to this particular vehicle, prior to the time that you started
preparing it for towing, did you have occasion to look at that vehicle --
exterior of that vehicle at all?

A. No, I didn't. Just after I hooked it up, just to make sure it was nothing --
there was nothing -- there wasn't full-time four-wheel drive.

Q. You described for us that you touched I guess the front wheel part of the
vehicle; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, the front right tire.

Q. Did you have occasion to look at any of the doors of that vehicle at all?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And you didn't notice anything on the exterior of that vehicle that you can
recall presently; is that correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have occasion to look at the driver's side door down by the sill,
down at the bottom of that particular vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never looked at that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you look -- Did you see what appeared to be any coffee-cup stains on the
hood of that vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. You didn't see that, either?

A. No.

Q. All right. So I understand, this is a fairly routine tow for you at this
time; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir; it was.

Q. The only different (sic) missing (sic) from this scene from other scenes is
that there was a lot of media present; is that correct?

A. That was it, yes.

Q. You were working that day -- by yourself that day, sir?

A. There was -- there was three other drivers that day. I was the only one that
got dispatched to the call.

Q. When you say "three other drivers" three other drivers who responded to the
call?

A. No, no, just on the shift.

Q. Working for Rheuban's that day?

A. Yes.

Q. You responded to a call, and when you got there at Rockingham, at or about
3:30 in the afternoon, you were the only driver there; is that correct? (sic)

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. You talked to a police officer once you got to the Rockingham
location, did you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you know the name of that police officer?

A. I can't remember his name, no.

Q. Was this police officer in civilian clothes, or was he in uniform?

A. He was in civilian, the one who instructed me where to take the Bronco was.

Q. He was in what?

A. In civilian clothes.

Q. You don't know his name?

A. No. No, sir, I don't.

Q. All right. At any rate, you then proceeded, as I understand your testimony,
to hook this vehicle up and then to transport it downtown; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was your understanding that you were going to meet a detective
somewhere in or about the print shed?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you described for us that it took you perhaps an hour or more to
drive easterly, downtown to Parker Center to the print shed; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Where is the print shed located, sir, downtown here in LA?

A. Directly behind Parker Center, on San Pedro Street.

Q. All right. You went to that location, and did you see any detective when you
first went there?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. All right. So how long did you wait at that location?

A. Approximately ten minutes. Ten, fifteen minutes.

Q. All right. And what time was that by now?

A. I would say about 3:30, 3:40, somewhere around that time. Let's see. No, no.
That's about 4:30, 4:40 around that time, about an hour after I left
Rockingham.

Q. All right. So 4:30, 4:40?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Did you talk to anybody at the print shed when you first got
there?

A. There was nobody there.

Q. All right. Nobody. It was like locked?

A. Yes.

Q. All right, sir. So you waited about ten minutes. And then thereafter, as I
understand your testimony, you drove around to Parker Center; is that correct?

A. That's correct, to the front of Parker Center.

Q. And you were by yourself at that point, so when you went in to try to locate
the detective, you left the vehicle on the street; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so how long were you away from that vehicle when you left it?

A. Approximately three minutes, just to go inside.

Q. All right. Now, what street did you park the vehicle on, sir?

A. Los Angeles.

Q. On Los Angeles Street?

A. Yes, sir. Right.

Q. And is that in front of Parker Center?

A. That's correct.

Q. Out on the street. So you would be heading northbound on Los Angeles?

A. I thought it was eastbound.

Q. Well, you're on Los Angeles Street, right?

A. Yeah. I was directly in front of Parker Center, in front of the doors. So I
thought it was eastbound, maybe.

Q. All right. You headed toward Union Station, did you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Towards Olvera Street?

A. Yes.

Q. So let's call that north, now.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. And you parked the car -- parked your vehicle there and your
vehicle; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you left it and then you went inside Parker Center, in the front doors
of Parker Center?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you left the vehicle to go inside, the media was outside, also?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Can you approximate for the Court and jury how many members of the media
were there, sir?

A. It was a group. I couldn't -- maybe 10, 15 more.

Q. A group, like a pack of media?

A. Yeah. They're all hanging out on the lawn.

Q. A Pack? How about a swarm, a swarm of media, Your Honor? So how many would
-- how many would --

A. I would say probably about ten, maybe more.

Q. All right. So ten -- about ten different cameras and that sort of thing?

A. Yes, exactly.

Q. And how far away were they from you at the time that you went inside when
you left the vehicle to go inside Parker Center?

A. It was about 15 yards.

Q. Fifteen yards away?

A. Yes.

Q. And then -- you then left the vehicle and went inside is; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you went inside to try to find a detective; is that correct?

A. I went inside and I asked the desk sergeant there, the person in charge, I
had a Bronco with me from 360 Rockingham. He called upstairs and told me that a
detective was on his way down.

Q. All right. And then that's kind of at the front desk when you walk inside
Parker Center; it's at the front desk there inside?

A. That's correct.

Q. And during this time while you were inside, there was nobody outside with
the Bronco at this point; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. So your best recollection is, you stayed inside for -- how long
did you -- strike that. Did you wait for the detective inside?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. All right. After you talked with this desk sergeant and you were told that a
detective would be coming down, did you go back outside then?

A. That's correct; I did.

Q. All right. And then you walked back outside to the vehicle?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And I presume it was still parked at the same place; is that
right?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And did you wait outside on the sidewalk at that point?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When you went back outside to wait for the detective, how long did you wait
before a detective came out?

A. About three minutes.

Q. All right. And --

A. Less than five minutes.

Q. Less than five minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. During that period of time, Mr. Douroux, did you have occasion to look at
exterior of the Bronco at all at that point?

A. No, sir.

Q. So up to the time that you left that particular vehicle on June 13, 1994,
you never had occasion to visually inspect the exterior of that vehicle. Is
that a fair statement?

A. Yeah. Just, I mean, took a quick glance, see that there was no damages, and
that was it.

Q. Did you have to log on any particular form whether or not there were damages
at any place on that particular --

A. It's usually marked on this when we look. We can look over the vehicle, make
sure there's no damages on the vehicle. If there are, we mark them down on the
impound sheet.

Q. That's called some sort of inventory, this sheet that you have before you?

A. Yes.

Q. And in completing this particular inventory form, for instance, there are --
the form is called inventory in the middle of the particular form; is that
correct? Inventory?

A. Well, right. Right here it says remarks that's where we put all the -- all
the damages down.

Q. Okay. And you have a "Y" column. I presume that's for yes and an (sic) "N"
column for no; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

(Counsel hands document to witness.)

Q. Did you fill this form out?

A. No, sir; that was already filled out by the LAPD.

Q. It was filled out by the LAPD --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- when you got the form?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you get that form?

A. From the LAPD, on Rockingham.

Q. When you first arrived there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. So that we're clear.

MR. P. BAKER: Then he offers to approach.

If we can look at the exhibit, this would be next in order. It was criminal
Exhibit 234.

MR. BAKER: Why don't you put it on the --

THE CLERK: 2112.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, it's already been marked on that list as 271.

THE CLERK: 271. Thank you.

(The instrument herein referred to as LAPD investigation impound report was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 271.)

THE REPORTER: Excuse me; does that mean it's not 2112?

THE CLERK: Correct; it's 271.

MR. P. BAKER: 26281, Line 11.

(The following testimony of Bernie Douroux was read into the record, with Mr.
P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr. Foster reading the answers.)

Q. These were filled out by someone else; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you fill out any portion of this form at all?

A. Just the part here, where my signature and the tow fee and the storage fee.

Q. All right. You filled out just the part where it indicates, 'Garage employee
complete this section,' and where it says 'Garage employee signature?'

A. That's correct.

Q. That's your signature, and your name is Bernie Douroux?

A. Douroux, yes, sir.

Q. All right. All right. Anything else filled out?

A. No. That's it.

Q. All right. And so with regard to the inventory on the vehicle you quickly
looked at it; is that correct?

A. That's correct, just the exterior, just to make sure there were no damages,
which there were none.

Q. You mentioned also, sir, that at some point, you had occasion to glance
inside the vehicle; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, just the front, the window, just to look to see if -- four-wheel
drive vehicles sometimes are full-time four-wheel-drive vehicles, so we have to
make sure they're not engaged, which I didn't see anything when I glanced, so I
didn't bother looking.

Q. And where were you when you glanced inside the vehicle?

A. On the right-hand side, passenger side.

Q. All right. And more specifically, what location were you at?

A. Oh, in the front.

Q. No. What where were you, at Rockingham or --

A. Oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Rockingham.

Q. So as I understand it, then you looked inside the vehicle while you were
still at 360 Rockingham?

A. Yeah. We just glanced in and looked.

Q. You did this from the passenger side of the vehicle?

A. That's correct.

Q. Pardon me. And you did this from the passenger side of the vehicle; is that
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you don't recall seeing anything that you noted inside that particular
vehicle; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. This would have been shortly after you arrived, about 3:30 in the
afternoon?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you looked inside. All right. Now, when you went back outside, after
talking to the desk sergeant, you waited for a period of time, perhaps less
than five minutes, and a detective came out; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You know the name of that detective, sir?

A. No, I don't remember it.

Q. And you talked briefly with that detective? You had a conversation with that
person?

A. Yeah. Weather.

Q. You talked about the weather?

A. Yeah, weather, and how -- because it was a nice, warm day. Other than that,
no, no conversation.

Q. June 13 was a warm day?

A. It was.

Q. All right. After you had that conversation with the detective, did you then
take the vehicle back over to the print shed?

A. Yes, we took it over there. He got in the truck and we went down to the
print shed.

Q. So the detective rode with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. You went back to the print shed. And at that time, you gained
Entrance into the print shed; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you, I presume, took the vehicle inside and parked at some location?

A. That's correct. I backed it in and parked the vehicle.

Q. About what time was it at this time, sir?

A. Oh, maybe a quarter of five, maybe almost five, by that time.

Q. Somewhere around 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

A. I believe it was before five.

Q. All right. And then -- and you then left the vehicle; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. While you were there, did you ever see any -- any person get inside that
vehicle at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever get inside it?

A. No, sir.

Q. By the way, do you carry -- in the course of your work as a tow-truck
driver, do you have one of these things called a slim jim?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. (READING)

Q. That is the kind of instrument that works to open vehicles; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. With regard to that slim jim, you could open that vehicle real quickly,
couldn't you?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, "real quickly."

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, I could.

Q. In other words, you're an experienced tow-truck driver?

A. Yes.

Q. How long would it take you to -- using your slim jim, to open a vehicle like
that Bronco?

A. Couple of minutes if I had to open it.

Q. If you wanted to open it, couple of minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see whether or not the detective who rode back over with you to
Parker Center, did you see whether or not he had a slim jim with him?

A. I didn't notice one, no.

Q. And did you ever see the detective open the vehicle while you were there?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you then left the vehicle and that ended your involvement with the
vehicle on that day; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. With regard to the form that's before you, again, Defense 271 -- Exhibit
271. You were asked whether or not there was any indication on the form of
whether or not this vehicle was locked and you indicated there's no -- there
was no indication one way or the other; is that correct?

A. That's correct. I really didn't even notice the part of -- up there.

Q. So look at it now for me, will you?

A. Yes. I'm looking at it.

Q. And the area called stolen, lost or embezzled, there's an indication, the
right part of that lock that -- or whether or not the ignition was locked,
right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. This call is not stolen lock or
embezzled.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER:

(READING)

Q. There's an indication whether the doors are locked. There's nothing
indicated, right?

MR. GELBLUM: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER:

(READING)

Q. You then left the print shed and it was about 5 o'clock or so that
afternoon?

A. About 5 o'clock, yes, sir.

Q. And what time did you check out that day from your -- terminate your
employment that day, if you recall?

A. 7 o'clock.

Q. And did you pick up any other vehicles on that day before you -- on that day
that you recall?

A. Before or --

And there's an objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(READING)

A. Before -- a few cars before.

MR. P. BAKER: 26289, line seven.

(READING) Did you write any other notes with regard to any of your observations
on that -- on that particular day other than your signature on exhibit 271 for
identification?

A. No, sir that's it. Just that --

Q. Pretty much it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And with regard to your observations or lack thereof of things either
outside the Bronco or inside the Bronco that you saw? Did you write those down
anywhere at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you never saw anything inside the interior of that vehicle; is that
correct?

A. No.

Q. Never saw any blood inside that vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. Never saw any blood on the outside of that vehicle?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see anything in the rear of the vehicle at all that you recall?

A. No, sir.

MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing, Your Honor.

MR. LAMBERT: With the Court's permission, we'd like to read from "Requests for
admissions."

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, in a civil case, there are several ways that
non-courtroom testimony comes in. One of the ways is when one party serves upon
another party a request for admissions; and the other party responds. And in
that instance the question and the response is received just as though it was
given here in court and it's given to you just as though it were evidence.
Everyone -- everybody understand that?

THE JURORS: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: (Reading:).

Plaintiff Fredric Goldman first set of admission. It's directed at Defendant
Orenthal James Simpson to 22033 of the California Civil Code of Procedure.

Fredric Goldman requests that defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, admit the
following matters of fact:

Request No. 196: Admit that your ABO blood type is A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

Request No. 194: Admit that your EAP blood type is EA.

Defendant's response: Admit.

Request number 213: Admit that you have an ESE blood type 1.

Defendant's response: Admit.

Request No. 195: Admit that your phosphoglucomutase, here and after, PGM blood
type 2 plus 2 minus.

Defendant response: Admit.

Request number 205: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an ABO type A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 203: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an EAP blood type of BA.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting that request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection for
any other point in time.

Request number 212: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had an ESE blood type 1.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point of time.

Request number 204: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 49 contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2
plus, 2 minus.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request No. 199: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 47, contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection for or
any other point in time.

Request No. 198: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 47, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2
plus, 2 minus.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 202: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 48 contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 201: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 48, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2
plus, 2 minus.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 208: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 50 contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 206: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 50 contained human blood that had an EAP blood type BA.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to time of collection or any
other point this time.

Request number 207: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item number 50, contained human blood that had a PGM blood
subtype of 2 plus, 2 minus.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 211: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 52, contained human blood that had an ABO blood type A.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request number 209: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as
LAPD evidence item 52, contained human blood that had an EAP blood type of BA.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting this request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory as opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

Request No. 210: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 52, contained human blood that had a PGM blood sub type of 2
plus, 2 minus.

Defendant's response: Admit.

In admitting that request for admission, the defense will adopt the plaintiff's
definition as communicated to the defendant as that point in time when an item
was tested by an outside laboratory opposed to the time of collection or any
other point in time.

MR. LAMBERT: And I would ask Your Honor that these requests for admissions be
marked exhibits 2112 through 2129 and be received into evidence.

MR. BAKER: I would object to them being received into evidence.

THE COURT: Is there anything in them aside from what you've just read?

MR. LAMBERT: No. It's the same thing.

THE COURT: Okay. They'll be received.

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 196 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2112.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 194 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2113.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 213 was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2114.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 195 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2115.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 205 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2116.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 203 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2117.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 212 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2118.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 204 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2119.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 199 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2120.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 198 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2121.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 202 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2122.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 201 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2123.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 208 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2124.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 206 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2125.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 207 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2126.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 209 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2127.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 210 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2128.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Request No. 211 was marked for
identification and received as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2129.)

MR. LAMBERT: At this point, we call Gary Matheson to the stand. GREGORY
MATHESON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated. And sir, if you please state and spell your name
for the record.

THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, M-A-T-H-E-S-O-N. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. By whom who are you employed Mr. Matheson?

A. By the city of Los Angeles.

Q. And what is your occupation?

A. My current position is Chief Forensic Chemist, Assistant Laboratory Director
of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles police department.

Q. Is that part of the scientific investigation division?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Were you employed on June 13, 1994?

A. Only June 13, 1994, I was not in my current position. I was the supervisor
of the serology trace and field units of the scientific investigation division.

Q. And you've since then been promoted?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you first join the scientific investigation division?

A. I was hired by the city as a criminalist in June of 1978.

Q. And have you worked as a criminalist with the city through various positions
since that time?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When did you first become aware of an investigation into the murders of
Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Sometime approximately about 7:45 on the morning of Monday, June 13.

Q. Did you play any role in the work of the scientific investigation division
in that investigation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What role did you play?

A. Well, initially my role, as I mentioned earlier at this time was -- I was
supervisor of the serology trace and field units within the laboratory and as
supervisor of the field units in particular. I was assigned to oversee the
field work, the evidence that was brought in, working a little bit of triage;
determining what items would be analyzed, initially overseeing and coordinating
the case.

Q. And as part of that initial role that you played, did you assign anyone
within the serology department to do any work on the investigation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who did you assign?

A. A criminalist by the name of Collin Yamauchi.

Q. And when did you assign him to do that work?

A. I believe that was the afternoon of Monday, June 13.

Q. And what did you direct Mr. Yamauchi to initially do in the case?

A. Well, initially he needed to get together with the criminalist that had
checked the evidence out at the scene. And as a group, we went through and
looked at the items to determine which would be most appropriate to analyze. He
worked in the serology unit, so he was going to be dealing with the biological
evidence. The initial task was to look at some of the items and see if we could
exclude the parties that were associated with the case at that point.

Q. Okay. And a decision was made to do certain test to see if parties could be
excluded?

A. That's correct.

Q. What tests did Mr. Yamauchi do to see if parties could be excluded?

A. Well within --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: -- Serology unit. We chose to go with a type of DNA testing
utilizing PCR. PCR is a preparation technique for a marker that goes by the
initials of DQA or DQ alpha.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And those are the initial tests that you did on these blood
samples?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Let me show you what's been marked as exhibit 216 in this case. Do you
recognize that exhibit, sir?

MR. BLASIER: May I look at that?

MR. LAMBERT: I gave it to you.

(The instrument herein referred to as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence
Disposition" was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 216.)

(Witness reviews exhibit 216.)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And we put the first page of it up on the television set
here. I don't know if you can see that very well, or you might be able to see
it better with the exhibit in it.

THE COURT: Is that the best you can do?

MR. LAMBERT: It's a little vague. There we go.

No, we won't be on it too long.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to review this exhibit prior to your testimony
today?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you please describe what this exhibit is?

A. What it is, is a summary of a number of the evidence items that were
collected associated with this case; listed out by item number, LAPD item
number, a brief description of it, when the item was collected and then the
dates that it was submitted to one of three outside agencies.

Q. And is that summary, summarized? Does that summary summarized other reports
and documents which underlie this exhibit?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And what kind of reports in -- and other documents are in that group of this
that this document summarizes?

A. There are several different types of documents. They're all prepared during
the course of this case.

They're S.I.D. documents that are both typed and handwritten letters of
transmittal of the items to agencies, property reports, serology description,
notes, variety of different types of documents.

Q. And are these documents that are generated by the S.I.D. personnel as part
of their routine business?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And have you had an opportunity to compare the underlying documents to this
summary to ensure that the summary accurately reflects the underlying
documents?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Does it do so?

A. Yes. I went through each of the items, found the documents to support it and
the dates and information as accurate.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I move exhibit 216 into evidence.

MR. BLASIER: I object on foundational grounds, subject to a motion to strike
since this witness is out of order.

THE COURT: Received as business records.

(The instrument herein described as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence
Disposition" was received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 216.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you mentioned before that, part of your role in this
investigation was to sort of supervise some of the activities. In that
connection, did you participate in a meeting on June 29, 1994 in connection
with this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who else participated in that meeting?

A. Well, present during it was myself, criminalist Yamauchi and my supervisor,
one of the assistant directors at the time, Michele Kestler.

Q. And what was the purpose of that meeting?

A. The purpose of it was to look at the evidence items that we currently had
within S.I.D., to inventory them and determine the quantity of each of the
evidence items that were there.

Q. And at that point in time, did you have a fairly substantial number of
evidence items?

A. Yes.

Q. Was any actual examination of the evidence done at that meeting?

A. No. No malice was done, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MS. LAMBERT) Was any testing of any of the evidence done at that
meeting?

A. No.

Q. Like to show you -- why don't you take this off, please, Steve, and put on
-- is this 1302? Like to show you exhibit 1302.

(The instrument herein referred to as notes of summary analyzed evidence was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1302.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Put the first page of that up.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. Do you recognize that document, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is that a document that you generated during the course of the meeting?

A. Yes. The writing on it is mine.

Q. And what was the purpose of the document?

A. Well, again, it was to summarize the items that we currently had in
evidence.

You can see the item number on the left, a brief description of it. To
determine the quantity and then either the analysis types that we expected to
perform on it, what had been performed, whether or not there was enough to do a
split and then just miscellaneous comments.

Q. Like, take for example, item number 4 here and perhaps you can tell us what
this item is?

A. Well, as it's described, it's a swatch which I described as medium to dark
red. One of them being about 8 millimeters squared.

Q. If you could move it over for me, Steve. And all the way over.

(Indicating to TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In the comments section here, what is it you said about
item number 4?

A. That it appeared from that one swatch, that 8 millimeter square that there
would be enough for the PCR analysis that I mentioned earlier and conventional
serology, but that if we went onto RFLP, that would totally consume the sample.

Q. So your purpose in going through these various evidence items at this
meeting was to make determinations as to what you could do with them in the
future?

A. Right. It was to determine how much was there, and give a quick idea, maybe
a triaging of what some of the more important items are and what the -- what
analysis may eventually be formed on them if it had not already been started.

MR. LAMBERT: Let's go to the second page now, Steve?

(Mr. Foster places on view screen second page).

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you take a look now, Mr. Matheson, item number 13,
what is that item?

A. Item number 13, I've described as socks. I believe I put down here navy blue
or black.

Q. Um-hum. If you can move it over a little Steve.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) To the final column, what did you write in the comments
section?

A. In the comment section, I have in quotes dress socks, just another
description for them as opposed to athletic or something along that line. That
a blood search should be performed and also that no blood was obvious or
nonobvious.

Q. That's what this says nonobvious?

A. Yes.

Q. And so you're decision at that meeting was to later have someone do a blood
search?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

Q. Was there a blood search later done on the socks?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And do you know whether that was done?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Was that blood search later done under your direction, sir?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And did you direct some particular person to do it?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And do you know when it was done?

A. I don't remember the exact date.

Q. Okay. It was done -- Do you know who it was done by?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was it done by?

A. Criminalist Yamauchi.

Q. Did he report back to you after he had done the blood search?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And did he tell you whether he had discovered any blood during the blood
search.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) During the time period after this meeting of June 29, 1994,
and the time that you later had discussions with Collin Yamauchi about his
blood search, where were the socks kept?

A. In a box inside of the freezer which is located in the serology unit of the
laboratory.

Q. And during that time period, who had access to the evidence in the serology
room.

MR. BLASIER: Object. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The laboratory has an electronic access system. That the doors are all
locked all the time and if you are allowed to have access to a location or to
the laboratory, you're given an electronic card of which a computer has entered
into it the number on that card, who it's assigned to, where they're allowed to
go within the laboratory at any particular time or day of the week.

I'm explaining this because the access changes. During normal working hours,
all of the criminalists within the laboratory have access to most of the areas
within the lab.

In other words, they can get into narcotics, serology, blood, all the different
laboratories within the laboratory itself.

They have to have a card to have the door unlocked for them.

Off watch, the access becomes limited to a criminalist to their own unit plus
our stock room and our evidence room.

So during the day, during Monday through Friday, Friday normal working hours
excluding holidays, any of the criminologists that work in the laboratory have
access to serology. Obviously the administrative management personnel do.
There's a student working assigned to serology that also has access to it.

Off watch, it would be limited to the criminalists that are assigned to the
serology unit and or management or -- and our management or administration.

Q. Did any of the Los Angeles police department officers investigating this
case have access to the socks and the -- in the serology unit during the time
periods we're talking about.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WTTNESS: They cannot get into any of the facilities without being accompany
by an S.I.D. personnel.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And have you reviewed the records to determine whether
anyone did have any access to the socks during the period between the time you
looked at them on June 29 and when Collin Yamauchi later did his search?

A. The people that I mentioned have access to the room, would have access to
the freezer. There was no indication that any were or any viewing was done on
the socks during that time period.

Q. Was there any indication that any Los Angeles police department officer had
access to the socks at all during that time period?

A. Not that I can find.

Q. Now, let me put up another board, here. You can take that off Steve, yeah.

(Mr. Foster complies, removes item from view screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I don't know how well you can see that, Mr. Matheson. You
may have to get down to take a look at it.

(Indicating to board.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) My question to you, sir, were you, yourself, involved in an
examination of some portions of the Bronco that was towed away from Mr.
Simpson's property?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And when did your examination take place?

A. I believe it was September 1, 1994.

Q. And where was that examination conducted?

A. It was conducted within the serology unit of the laboratory.

Q. Calling your attention to this exhibit, in particular to this photograph on
the bottom right corner here, would you tell us what that depicts, please.

(Indicating to photo on board.)

THE WITNESS: What this photograph shows is the console unit that was taken out
of the Bronco. It's sitting on an examination table that we have in the center
of our serology unit. Papers underneath it to protect it from the surface
itself.

As you can see, there's also numbers that are on the console indicating areas
where material was removed off it or blood was removed off of it.

Q. And did you in fact, take blood samples from these areas that are marked
with the little numbers in the photograph?

A. Yes. I collected blood from four separate areas on what would be the right
hand side of the console.

Q. Now, in collecting that blood, sir, did it appear to you that any of that
blood had previously been swatched as part of a collection effort?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Which portion appeared to you to have been previously swatched?

A. It was in the area on the console here as marked 303, and I believe in the
same area of 304.

Q. So you could tell by looking at those that someone had previously wiped
across the blood splatters there?

A. That's correct. You can see where a portion of them was -- you've collected
a number of samples. You can see when it's done there's like a white mark. It
doesn't completely remove the blood. It's apparent that something else --

Q. Was it apparent to you that although this blood had been checked in the
past, there was sufficient left for you to do another collection?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was.

Q. And that's what you did?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let's take a look at this picture while we're out here. Did you also,
on that same day, collect any further blood evidence from another portion of
the Bronco?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was that from?

A. The carpet area that had been removed from the Bronco.

Q. Okay. This carpet area, is it -- it was sectioned out of the bottom part of
the Bronco?

A. Yes, it was cut out from the driver's floor board area.

Q. And do you know when that was cut out?

A. I believe it was on June 14, 1994.

Q. Was that by Dennis Fung?

A. Yes.

Q. And where had that piece of carpet been after it was cut out by Dennis Fung
before you did your work on September the 1st?

A. It was also maintained in a box in the freezer of the serology unit.

Q. So on September the 1st, did you take that out of the box, out of the
freezer unit and in from your lab to do the work that you did on it?

A. Yes.

Q. What was it that you did precisely?

A. I went and I removed some additional blood stain area of the fibers in the
carpeting by clipping them out and placing them in a what's called a paper
bindle to protect them.

You can see there are some clippings already in a bindle that's folded up,
taped and marked and initialed as to where it came from.

In addition to a stained area always collect what's called a control or an
unstained area of the same surface that the blood is on. So that later on in
the testing, you can find out whether or not this surface itself is
contributing to the result.

So what I did is collect a portion of the blood stain area here and a control
area that was in a as close as possible, but visually unstained area of the
carpeting.

Q. Those things that you checked there, did you give them item number 293?

A. Yes.

Q. So item number 293 is in fact pieces of the carpet that you cut out that
day?

A. That's correct.

Q. And do you know the item number of the carpet itself that was taken from --
that was cut out?

A. Yes I believe it was 33.

Q. And these item numbers here 303, 304, 305 and 306, those are the items
numbers that you assigned to the blood that you checked off the console?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we're having technical difficulty with this TV.
Might we break shortly to see if he can fix it.

THE COURT: All right. Let's take ten minutes. Don't form any opinions about the
case.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

Why don't you put that back up, please.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Mr. Matheson, we were talking before about this console in the Bronco that
you collected blood on. I wanted to be sure, because of our technical problems,
that we made this point clear.

Would you point out on this television screen here the items of evidence which
you collected from this Bronco console.

A. There are four separate areas where I collected blood off the console: This
one was marked 303; 304, which is a stain that covers this area here; 305, down
in the lower right-hand corner; and then 306, which appears it could be an
extension of this stain, but went ahead and collected it as a separate item.

Q. Of these items that you collected, which were the ones that appear to you to
have previously been swatched in a prior collection?

A. What I have marked as 303, the area up on the console lid here, and 304 on
the right-hand rear side.

Q. And could you tell from looking at them that someone had previously
collected from those items?

A. That's correct.

Q. When you did this collection in your laboratory in serology, who else was
present?

A. I don't have the complete list with me. I was present; there were people
that were coming and going, some of the attorneys, that type of thing.

But in addition, as far as technical-type staff, there were a Mark Taylor and
Larry Ragle that were working for the defense that were observing and assisting
on this.

Q. Those were Mark Taylor and Larry Ragle were experts look working for Mr.
Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. They were there watching you do this collection?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the evidence items that you took off this, you then did what with them,
sir, the things that you took off the Bronco console?

A. Well, they were collected on swatches, which is the way we collect blood
samples, are allowed to dry, package up in the bindles like what you saw in one
of the previous photographs from the carpeting area. You do the same thing with
any small type of evidence.

The items placed in the bindle; the bindle's closed up, sealed, marked as to
where it came from, the time and the initials of who did it. They're then
packaged and booked into -- or placed into our property division.

Q. Now, you mentioned when you were talking about the June 29 meeting where you
made the list of all the evidence items and what you were going to do with them
in the future, you mentioned the word "triage" in connection with that.

Can you explain to us what you mean by "triage?"

A. Well, I believe it's mainly a medical term. It has to do with doing the most
important things first. Best example would be if there's a big accident where
you have a number of victims, obviously not all of them can be dealt with at
the same time; they go through what's called a triaging program, where they
decide who is the most injured, work them first, and then go on down the line.

I used it -- There were many evidence items associated with this case.

We don't have the resources to analyze every item first, so you do a triaging
system; you go through, figure out -- or make the best guess as to what you
think are the most important items there that are going to yield the most
important information first. Eventually, as time and resources become
available, you come in and finish up the rest of the items.

Q. And that's what you were doing that day with these evidence items in this
case?

A. That was part of it, yes.

Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about serology at SID.

You have been involved in serology there for some time?

A. Yes, since August of 1981.

Q. And prior to joining SID, what was your educational background?

A. Well, I got a degree, bachelor of science degree in criminology from the
California State University at Long Beach, and at the time completed the course
requirements for a bachelor of arts degree in chemistry, though I never
received that degree.

Q. And since the time that you joined SID, have you been actively involved in
serology work, at least since the time you went into the serology department?

A. Yes. Like I said, I started in June of 1978.

In August of 1981, I was transferred into the serology unit as a criminalist.
At that time, I started learning the techniques that are specific to our
laboratory, and worked as a criminalist within that unit doing case work:
Homicide, sexual assaults, analyzing body fluids, until about May of 1989, when
I was promoted to supervisor of that unit.

Q. And for how long were you the supervisor of the serology unit?

A. Well, of just the serology unit, I was a supervisor for about three years.
At a point approximately three, three and a half years later, one of our other
supervisors resigned and I was given a couple of additional units.

Like I mentioned, at the time in June of 1994, I not only supervised serology,
but our trace comparative unit, which does hairs, fibers, that type of thing,
and the field unit, which is the criminalists who go out and collect evidence
from the scene.

Q. In terms of serology, what type of testing is done in the LAPD serology
department?

A. Well, there's a number of different type of techniques. They can be broken
down into two main groups that we've started calling conventional serology and
then DNA analysis.

To touch real quick on the DNA, there's a couple different types of analysis
there, an awful lot of initials: One of them goes by the initials PCR, one by
RFLP. Our laboratory only does PCR-type of DNA analysis.

Q. In terms of conventional serology, could you describe a little bit more what
you mean by that?

A. Sure. Conventional serology is what I mainly worked as a criminalist, or did
work as a criminalist in that area. It's the conventional or the serological
type of test that's been used in a variety of different disciplines for many,
many years.

The best example of conventional serology would be ABO blood typing used in
hospitals a lot for transfusions. Everybody has an ABO type; they're either
type A, type B, type AB or type O. You fall into one of those four categories.

That is one of the systems or genetic markers that we use in conventional
serology to try and make an association or an elimination between a person and
a blood stain or a semen sample.

In addition to the ABO, which has been around for decades, there are techniques
that involve enzymes. Enzymes are nothing more than another chemical that's in
your body similar to the ABO type, of which you have certain types that we can
put into groups.

An example of that is one of the enzymes that we look at goes by the initials
ESD -- it's a fairly long name; that isn't particularly important. But you are
either an ESD type 1, type 2, or type 2/1; you fall into one of those groups.
And you are the same type from the time you're born until you die.

Q. Is there also a conventional serology typing called the PGM type?

A. Yes, there is. That's one of the other enzymes that we look at.

Q. Okay. Is it similar to the ESD type?

A. It is similar in that it's an enzyme; it performs a function in your body.
We can break it down either into a type 1, type 2, or type 2/1. Then you can do
one additional step which breaks those three down into what are called sub
types, or about ten different possibilities, rather than just three.

Q. So all of us have one of those ten different sub types?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there also an EAP type that you're familiar with?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that?

A. Again, it's just another enzyme that performs a function in your body,
exists in a few more types. The examples being you're either type B, A, C, A,
BC, A. I mean, it's a combination of letters. But each one of those designates
a type, just again like in the ABO blood-type system, you have a type from
--throughout your life.

Q. And are all these conventional serology systems separate and apart from DNA
testing?

A. They're separate, in that you're testing for the enzyme itself, or in the
ABO group the antigens and the antibodies. They are different tests and you get
typed. They are connected in a way, and all of them are based on your DNA.

Q. But if a person has a particular one of these types, that doesn't
necessarily mean what their DNA profile is going to be, does it?

A. They are independent from the DNA markers that we look at in forensic
science.

Q. Okay. Looking at these -- These four conventional types that you've
described, is there any way of determining how common or uncommon a particular
blood type is in the population, generally?

A. Yes.

Q. And how do you do that?

A. Like I mentioned, you have a blood type that is yours from the time you're
born till the time you die. By analyzing samples, you can find out how much of
a percentage of the population has a certain type.

For example, going back to the ABO blood typing system, approximately half of
the population -- a little bit less than that -- but approximately half of the
population is ABO type O.

The next most common is A, then B, then AB.

Within our laboratory, we've been doing this conventional type of serology
since we started the enzymes, I believe in 1977, but we've been doing the ABO a
lot longer. We store the information on all of the victims and suspects that
we've gotten. We do a blood sample that comes in on somebody; we record what
their types are. And over the years, we've kept a chart and we know what
percentage of the population in the City of Los Angeles, among victims and
suspects, is a type O, type A, type B, or type AB.

Q. And is it possible that if you know all four of these different blood types
we've been talking about for a particular person or evidence sample, to
determine how common or uncommon it would be in the general population to have
that combination of all four types?

A. Yes.

Q. And how do you go about doing that?

A. Well, it's something called a product rule. It's just as simple as you take
the percentage of a type in one marker, like, let's say an ABO type, we know
that possibly half of the people in this room would have that type; that is
type O.

Then you go on to another marker and say -- let's see: We've used ESD -- excuse
me -- as an example. Let's say approximately 50 percent of the population is a
type 1. It's actually higher than that, but for simplicity, let's stay with
that.

If we have a stain that I know is ABO type O and ESD type 1, we'd multiply 50
percent by 50 percent and come up with about 25 percent, so we'd know now that
approximately 25 percent, or one out of every four people in this room, would
have a combination of a type O ESD 1. And you just keep doing that with each
additional marker. You get a little bit more information, it narrows down the
pool of people that could have left a stain.

Q. So if a person has an ABO type A, an ESD type 1, a PGM type 2 plus, 2 minus,
and an EAP type BA, could you tell us how common in the population would be the
combination of those four blood types?

A. By taking each of those pieces of information, determining the population or
the percentage for each marker, and then multiply them together, that
combination of four comes out to about .17 percent of the population. Or to put
it in a little bit more understandable terms, approximately one out of about
550 to 570 people would have that complete combination of types.

Q. So in this case, evidence on the item 49, which was one of the blood drops
found at Bundy, had an ABO type A and ESD type 1, a PGM type 2 plus, 2 minus an
EAF type BA, how many people out of the population could have been the person
that left that blood drop there?

A. Given the information you gave me, again, it would be about .17 percent of
the population, or approximately one out of every 550 to 570 people.

Q. And if Mr. Simpson had those same four blood types, would he then be one of
those, one out of 550 people who could have left that blood type?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He would be included in that group that could have left that
stain, yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Morning, Mr. Matheson.

A. Morning.

Q. How are you today?

A. Good.

Q. We've had quite a few discussions, you and I, during the course of the last
two, two and a half years, have we not?

A. Yes, we have.

Q. Since Mr. Simpson was acquitted on October 3 of 1995, can you give me a
rough estimate of the total amount of time that you have spent on the Simpson
case?

A. Well, it's interspersed with an awful lot of other things. Of the total
time, oh, gosh, I don't know; probably 40 to 60 hours.

Q. And of that 40 to 60 hours, how much of that has been at the request of the
plaintiffs in this case?

A. And all of that includes just my personal preparation time and that type of
thing, where I was dealing specifically just with the plaintiffs.

Q. Or doing work that the plaintiffs requested that you do?

A. Well, no additional work was done as far as analytical type of work.

I don't know. I'd say probably 10 to 15, maybe. It's hard to estimate.

Q. You say that there's no additional analytical work. You mean there was no
additional testing or experimentation that you did on behalf of the plaintiffs?

A. There was no additional testing as far as analysis on evidence items.

Q. Experimentation?

A. Yes.

Q. There was no additional experimentation?

A. No. I'm sorry. There was an additional experiment that I ran.

Q. How much time did you devote to that experiment?

A. Actual work time, possibly a couple hours.

Q. Did you do that during the course of your county time?

A. Actually, I work for the city.

Q. City?

A. Some of it was, some of it wasn't. I came in on my own time, just to check
the results on something.

Q. And a think you said 10 to 15 hours you spent working with the plaintiffs.
Did I hear that correctly?

A. Well, no. I think again, these are very rough estimates. It has to do with,
you know, like, meeting with them, also things like that, experiments that I'm
talking about, performing a variety of just organizational type of tasks.

Q. And let me ask you, have you ever, in the course of your career, done an
experiment for a private party to a civil action?

A. It's kind of an interesting thing. I mean, there's a question there that
needed to be answered. I'm not sure I did it just for the plaintiff in this
case.

To answer your question, I have not ever performed an experiment specifically
at the request of the plaintiff in a civil case.

Q. And this experiment that you performed was at the request of the plaintiffs,
correct?

A. It was a -- we brought up in my mind -- it was a question I wanted to answer
during the course of the criminal case, and never had the time to do it. And
during the course of discussions, I was reminded of it and chose to perform it.

Q. There were many questions other than the one that dealt with that experiment
that were raised during the course of the criminal trial with respect to the
operations at your lab, were there not?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Have you done any experiments, since Mr. Simpson was acquitted in October of
1995, on any of those other issues?

A. No, I have not.

Q. How many meetings have you had with the plaintiffs' attorneys?

A. Are we talking solely with them, defense not being present?

Q. Correct.

A. Being spread out over the last many months, I'd have to say three to five,
something like that.

Q. And did you meet with them last night or this morning?

A. Not last night; this morning I did, yes.

Q. And how long did you meet with them?

A. About an hour and 15 minutes, something like that.

Q. Did they explain to you the parameters of your testimony?

A. Well, we did discuss the areas that we'd been covering, yes.

Q. Now, you did quite a bit of testing, yourself, in this case, did you not, of
conventional serological testing?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, Exhibit No. 216, which was the chart -- do you have that in front of
you?

A. Talking about the summary of --

Q. Correct?

A. -- items?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, you prepared that; is that correct?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Who prepared that?

A. It was provided to me by the plaintiff.

Q. So this is not a document generated by the Los Angeles Police Department
Scientific Investigation Division?

A. I did not generate it; that's correct.

Q. So this is not a business record; this is not a record that was prepared by
your agency, correct?

A. This particular document was not prepared by our agency, yes.

Q. When were you presented with this document?

A. I believe that was last Tuesday.

Q. And did you spend time going over the document and determining whether it
was accurate or not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How much time did you spend doing that?

A. Probably, if I added up all the little bits and pieces that I spent in
between other tasks, I don't know, maybe three to four hours, something in
there.

Q. And I take it you reviewed documents that were generated within your lab to
determine whether the information on the document was accurate, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Looking at page 2, number 17, that indicates number 17 is Mr. Simpson's
reference blood vial, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it your understanding that that was the reference blood sample taken by
Nurse Thano Peratis at the jail hospital?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference vial was given item
number 17, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Before I show you these documents, let me ask you a couple questions about
procedures for booking evidence into SID, or into LAPD in general.

What is a DR number?

A. DR number, I believe it stands for division of records, something like that.
It is a case number. It's something that is assigned and follows a case from
beginning to end.

Q. Now, when is a DR number assigned in a case, generally?

A. Well, it's rarely involved in SID. I believe it's assigned when a detective
calls up, either records or the local station, and requests the next number in
line.

Q. And that's something that they can do, basically, from any location at any
time, once they start working on a case, correct?

A. Well, mechanically, I believe they can. I don't know what their procedures
are as to what time -- at what point it's supposed to occur.

Q. I mean, all they need to do is call up on the phone and ask for the next
number that becomes the case number for that case?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You're aware of the procedure where DR numbers are assigned
to a case, as just indicated?

A. General procedures, yes.

Q. That involves calling up and saying, give me a number; this is going to be
the number for the case that I just started working on, correct?

A. Yes. Except for I don't know what information they need to convey when they
get it.

Q. Okay. And once they get a number, all of the evidence that's collected in a
case is tied to that number; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, once they have a DR number, if a detective collects a piece of evidence
in the field that he wants to have booked, it goes in under that number,
correct?

A. That case number, yes, the DR number.

Q. If they have an item of evidence that he wanted to bring to SID, what's the
procedure for doing that?

A. Well, if he wanted the item analyzed, they would book it into property
division and normally request that somebody, in whatever unit is going to pick
up the evidence from property and bring it in and analyze it.

Q. And that's done all the time, isn't it?

A. That's a regular procedure, yes.

Q. Now, when your criminalists are collecting and booking evidence in the
field, or collecting evidence in the field, there's a certain amount of
documentation that they're required to fill out as they do their job, correct?

A. There's documentation, yes.

Q. And that documentation includes listing items that they collect or observe,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And writing down information about those items' location, who collected
them, that sort of thing?

A. The "who collected them" isn't necessarily done at the scene; but, yes, a
location, a description.

Q. And items are given what are called item numbers as they are collected,
correct?

A. Not necessarily. They're given photo numbers. The item numbers aren't
assigned until after all the items are brought back to the laboratory and the
booking process or the packaging process occurs.

Q. Well, item numbers can be assigned in the field, as well, can they not?

A. They can be, yes.

Q. Now, with respect to the evidence that was collected that's reflected on
this chart at the Rockingham location, the item number that is listed in the
left-hand side of the chart, here, 4 through 17, those were all items numbers
that were assigned by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola at the Rockingham crime
scene, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You've reviewed the records that form the basis for this
chart, have you not?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And that includes property records that correspond -- that have the same
items that correspond to the items that are described, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you reviewed records that relate to the items that were picked up at
Rockingham, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me show you what's previously been marked as Exhibit 212.

MR. BLASIER: Put this on the Elmo.

Let me give you a copy of it.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That document is in Dennis Fung's handwriting, is it not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Excuse me. Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You are familiar with Dennis Fung's handwriting, are you
not?

A. Not to the point if I was given a lot of different handwriting, I could pick
it out.

Q. Does that appear to be his handwriting?

A. It appears.

Q. You've seen that document before, have you not?

A. I believe I have, yes.

Q. Now, that document case -- that item number 17 --

MR. BLASIER: Can we get that in better focus?

There you go.

Q. --is a pair of tennis shoes, correct?

A. That's what it reflects, yes.

Q. Those tennis shoes were collected, were turned over at a meeting that you
had on June 14, in the morning, by Detective Lange, correct?

A. That's possible. I don't specifically remember when we received those.

Q. But you remember that you received those from Detective Lange the morning
after the crime scene was processed?

A. I believe so, yes. I don't know if I received them. They were received in
the laboratory.

Q. You were aware that Detective Lange had taken those tennis shoes home
overnight, correct?

A. I had subsequently heard that.

Q. Now, item number 18 on that document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference
blood was given item number 18, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was listed there after the tennis shoes that were turned in on the
morning of the 14th, correct?

A. That's what this list shows, yes.

Q. I have this --

MR. BLASIER: This is a new exhibit.

Could I have a number, please?

THE CLERK: 2130.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 2130?

THE CLERK: (Nods affirmatively.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Serology item description notes was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2130.)

Q. Let me show you 2130. I'll give you a copy; maybe you can see it a little
bit better.

A. Thanks.

Q. Now, you recognize that document, don't you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That's -- its title, serology item description notes, why don't you tell me
what that document is for?

A. This is used in a lot of different instances when a criminalist in the
serology unit is working on a case, where they receive the evidence prior to
analyzing it, this is one of the forms that's filled out. It merely has the
item number on the left-hand side, a brief description of it, and then whether
it was in a sealed condition when they received it, those types of things.
Those are notations and boxes toward the right-hand side. You can't see them on
the screen.

It's also kind of generally used as a note pad or a place just to record notes
within the serology unit.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the bottom, that is number 18 and refers to
Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was being referred to by that number on, according to that document,
June 14.

MR. BLASIER: Can we back out on that a little, Phil?

(Mr. P. Baker complies.)

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's indicated by the dates on the right, correct?

A. Yes. The day received is 6/14/94.

Q. Let me give you another exhibit, which I'll number 2131.

(The instrument herein referred to as document entitled Serology Case Typing
Summary DNA Analysis was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No.
2131.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you --

MR. BLASIER: Phil, can we back out on that a little bit?

(Mr. P. Baker complies.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, that is a document entitled Serology Case Typing
Summary DNA Analysis, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And you recognize that document, as well, do you not?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And tell us what that document is for.

A. Okay. When a criminalist in serology unit is doing a DNA analysis, this is
the sheet in which they record their results. And normally, it is one of the
sheets that's used to write the analyzed evidence report from.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on the left-hand column, lower column now.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The last entry on that form indicates number 18 as Mr.
Simpson's reference vial, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. That document is as of what date?

A. I believe it was started on June 14, 1994.

Q. Is there a completion date on that?

Do you have that in front of you?

A. It has a day completed, which refers, I believe, to the analysis of June 17,
1994.

Q. So as of the 17th, according to that document, Mr. Simpson's reference vial
was still number 18, correct?

A. I don't believe that's what this says.

Q. What does the No. 1 indicate?

A. The item number 18 that's on there would be the item number which the --
when the evidence was received by Mr. Yamauchi, when the analysis was started.

Q. At some point in time, the number on Mr. Simpson's reference vial was
changed from 18 to 17, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. That's because had it been number 18, that would have indicated that it was
booked on the morning of the 14th, after the tennis shoes, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained`

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: That was done because the records indicated, as item number
18, it was booked -- it was collected by Dennis Fung after the tennis shoes on
the morning of the 14th, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You may ask the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Why was 18 changed to 17?

A. On this specific item, I don't know.

Q. You have no idea?

A. No. Item numbers and photo numbers do regularly get changed for a variety of
reasons, including simplicity of putting things in order. If you notice, also
on this page is two other item numbers, I believe 107 or 109 turned out to be
in the 40 range.

Q. Those numbers refer to photo I.D. numbers, do they not?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. You're talking about the first two comments that say looks like 107 and
maybe 109?

A. Something like that, yes.

Q. That wasn't the item number they were given; that was the photo I.D.,
correct?

A. At this point, it was the number that was indicating that item, but it was
not the property number, because they are not necessarily related.

Q. So that's why those numbers became a different number, because they were
given a different item number on the property report, correct?

A. From the photo number, yes. That was an example I gave as to how it can
change.

Q. Now, item 18, however, was given that number in sequence after the tennis
shoes, which were item 17, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) We looked at the document before that showed item 17 as the
tennis shoes and item 18 as the blood sample, correct?

A. We saw a document that had that on it, yes.

Q. That's document number 212, correct?

A. It's the one we looked at earlier, yes.

Q. All right. This is done by Dennis Fung at the time he receives the items,
correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that a document prepared in the regular course of
business in your agency?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It's a plain white piece of paper that has three lines of text
written on it. I don't know specifically when it was filled out by Dennis.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So now is it your testimony that you have no idea when that
item number was changed to 17?

A. I do have some idea. I know it was changed sometime from when Criminalist
Fung received it and when the property report was filled out.

MR. BLASIER: Let me mark a new exhibit next in line.

THE CLERK: 2132.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a follow-up investigation report
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2132.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you Exhibit 2132.

MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in on that a little bit.

(Referring to TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's a document that's called a follow-up investigation
report, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And that's a document that was prepared specifically to change the item
number of Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17, correct?

A. No, it isn't.

Q. What is it for?

A. This was the form in general that is used to correct information that
appeared on a previously submitted form, department form.

This particular one was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, not to change the item number
on the item itself, but rather, to reflect a change of the item number on his
analyzed evidence report that he prepared.

Q. It says "change item number 18 to item number 17," correct?

A. On his analyzed evidence report, correct, not on a property report or
anything that Mr. Fung had prepared.

Q. And why was that necessary?

A. Because when Mr. Yamauchi started the analysis on these items, he was under
the belief that the blood was going to be item number 18, so to have a number,
follow it through, that's what he recorded all the way through.

At some point, it was determined that the whole blood would become item number
17, which became the official number for that title on the department property
report. At that point, it would have been very confusing for Mr. Yamauchi's
report to reflect 18, when the actual item number or property number was 17, so
he put through an official change to make that correction.

Q. Now, the date of this change was what? June 28, was it not?

A. This form, or the report was dated June 28, that's correct, 1994.

Q. And it was signed by you, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Why was it necessary to change the blood in item number 18 for item number
17?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the testimony, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

I don't understand your objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't know. That's something that Mr. Fung will have to answer.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell me whether there is any other item in these
several hundred items that were collected, that were given an item number by
the criminalist that was later changed?

A. By the criminalist or by SID?

As I mentioned earlier, there were many other items that received an initial
number that eventually ended up getting changed on the property report.

Without going through all 450 or 500, I can't answer specifically if there was
ones that were given an item number and then given a different item number.

To me, an item number occurs when the property is booked. Prior to that, it's
some sort of reference number, be it one in order or a photo number. The item
number is what appears on the property report.

Q. Are you aware of any single document, a checklist that gives items numbers
as filled out by the criminalist when they collect the evidence, where it's
assigned a number and that item number was changed? Can you give me a single
example?

A. Are we talking about this --

Q. This case.

A. I have not gone through and reviewed all of the stuff in the notes. At this
point, I can't remember if there was one or not.

Q. Do you remember seeing any other follow-up investigation report like 2132 in
this case, changing an item number?

A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I filled one out that changed because I made a
typographical error, filled out a 314, which is what this report is called,
making a correction to one of my reports in an item number.

Q. Which one was that?

A. Had to do with, I believe, the property report I filled out, collecting
items associated with the Bronco pieces taken to the laboratory.

Q. And which item are you thinking about?

A. Well, in the body of the report -- if I can refer to the report, I can give
you the exact numbers.

Q. Sure.

A. Okay.

In the property report, I refer to item No. 306 as a hair fiber collected from
the same location as 306/30. That's a typographical error. Obviously, the item
that it can become couldn't have come from itself. I filled out this exact same
form correcting the item, this number that appears in the description, so it
reads item 306 hair fiber collected from the same location as No. 303/30.

This form is used for corrections like that.

Q. Okay. But that was because there had already been the number 30 assigned to
that; you just wrote it down correct. You had to conform what you wrote to what
the item number that had already been assigned to that item, correct?

A. That's correct; it was a correction.

Q. Are you aware of any instance where an item number that was assigned by a
criminalist for an item that was collected at any of those crime scenes was
changed, other than Mr. Simpson's reference vial?

A. Well, again, we're getting into a discussion of when it becomes an item
number.

The item number is what's on the property report. I don't believe any of them
were changed after the fact, once it made into a property report.

I know of no other ones, other than the photo I.D.s that I mentioned earlier,
that got changed, again, between the description number and eventually the item
number on the property report.

Q. Well, that's the chart number 216, again, the summary chart prepared by the
plaintiffs. You see on the left-hand column of that where it has LAPD item
number?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Isn't it accurate that every single item number, with the exception of 17,
Mr. Simpson's reference vial, has a number assigned by the criminalist in their
original paperwork as the item that was collected?

A. No.

Q. Point to one that is not.

A. All the items that were checked at Bundy were given an item number or
descriptor number based on the photo numbers that were eventually changed to
put them in order in a logical position on a property report. Changing numbers
is not a terribly uncommon situation.

Q. Well, the items that refer to the blood drops that were collected at Bundy,
they were given photo I.D. numbers, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's because of the order in which the photographs were taken; when they
put the little cards on the ground, they give it that number, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. When evidence was started to be collected at Rockingham, Dennis Fung started
numbering item numbers sequentially as he collected items, correct?

A. The photo numbers and eventually they made it -- they happen to match when
he did the property report.

Q. Is there a photo number for Mr. Simpson's reference vial?

A. I don't believe so, no.

Q. So we're not talking about a photo I.D. number that had been changed with
respect to Mr. Simpson's vial, are we?

A. No.

Q. Now, on that chart, I want to direct your attention to number 84. Number 84
refers to fingernail scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. This is done as a routine procedure by the coroner, collecting scrapings
from under a victim's fingernails, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's to determine whether there might be blood or skin from a person that
was scratched, correct?

A. I believe that's the reason, yes.

Q. You did serological testing on those samples, did you not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you told by the plaintiffs that you weren't going to
be asked any questions about any testing you did?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, let me put on the Elmo, a picture that's
previously been marked as 992.

(The instrument herein referred to as a Picture of the blood in the vial that
was drawn from Mr. Simpson's arm by Nurse Thano Peratis on the 13th of June,
1994 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 992.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You see that picture, Mr. Matheson?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you recognize that to be a picture of the blood in the vial that was
drawn from Mr. Simpson's arm by Nurse Thano Peratis on the 13th of June, 1994,
correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

Q. There are records, are there not, within SID, that demonstrate any time that
that blood vial is opened to have blood removed, correct?

A. Well, when each person analyzes it, they record that the vial was open, yes.

Q. And they actually write their initials on the label and the date, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's required procedure?

A. To mark the item, yes.

Q. And that's so that you can at any time determine who opened the vial at any
particular time, correct?

A. That's one of the ways, yes, to be able to check the markings that are on
it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, can we zoom in on the stopper.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see the blood on the stopper in that vial?

A. Yes, behind the glass.

Q. Do you have any idea when this particular picture was taken?

A. I don't remember the date. I believe it was one of the times when
representatives of the defense team were in our laboratory, looking at evidence
items.

Q. Do you know whether there are any pictures that exist of that blood vial
prior to June 25 of 1994?

I'm sorry. Let me give you June 14.

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. So you have no way of knowing whether there was blood on the stopper in that
vial as of June 13, do you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as 225.

(The instrument herein referred to as outside of a gray analyzed evidence
envelope was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 225.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell us what that is?

A. That's the outside of a gray analyzed evidence envelope that we used to book
either blood or urine samples in.

Q. And can you see that closely enough to determine whether that's Mr.
Simpson's reference vial envelope?

A. I did see the item number 17, which is the property item number for Mr.
Simpson's blood. I don't know if it mentions from the bottom part his name or
not, but that is the item number that was associated with that item after it
was booked.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you back that off, Phil.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That number 17 is written in red, correct?

A. Appears to be.

Q. Do you have any idea when that number was put on that envelope?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Okay. Now, what is the correct procedure when blood is collected with
respect to how that envelope is used?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: You can take that off, Phil.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you again, 2130 serology description notes.

MR. BLASIER: And I want to zoom in right there.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see that entry, Mr. Matheson?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. Let me give you a copy of that.

A. I thought I had one.

Okay.

Q. And that entry that we've zoomed in on indicates that on June 13,
approximately one milliliter was removed from Mr. Simpson's reference vial for
swatching, correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: It's their business record; they used it to formulate this chart.

THE COURT: I know. It's beyond the scope of their examination. You may do it on
your portion of your case.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, do you have 1302 in front of you?

A. Which one is that one?

Q. That's the document you prepared on the 29th of June.

A. Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have page 2 please.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I believe it was your testimony that the purpose of
examining evidence on the 29th was -- there were actually a number of different
purposes, were there not?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And one of those was to determine whether there was biological evidence or
biological material on evidence that should be shared with the defense -- from
the defense desires to do testing on their own, correct?

A. Part of it, yeah. That's the reason for the column that says "split." Part
of it was to determine whether or not we felt there was sufficient evidence to
perform a split of the evidence, or to give the defense part for their own
testing.

Q. And so each item of evidence was examined to determine whether it had
biological material on it, blood stains, et cetera, that might be split with
the defense, correct?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. When you were examining these items, were you looking at them to see whether
or not they had evidentiary value?

A. Generally, yes. We weren't doing an examination; we were looking at it and
doing an inventory.

Q. You looked at each item, did you not?

A. Yes, we did.

MR. BLASIER: Let's zoom in on number 13.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you got to number 13 --

By the way, did you fill out this form as you did your examination?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when you got to number 13, you were in the room with Mr. Yamauchi and
Michele Kestler, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were all looking at the items of evidence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And number 13, pair of socks, you looked at those items, correct?

A. Yes. I pulled them out of the bag; that's how I determined the color of
them.

Q. Now, let's go over to the far right-hand column. Under comments, you wrote
"blood search," correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that's because you looked at them to see if there was any blood on them,
didn't you?

A. No. If I had done that -- If I had performed an analysis, it would have
appeared on the column 2 before that, that says "analysis performed." It
doesn't appear in that column.

It does appear in the comments, indicating that is something that we needed to
do.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's go to the left a little bit, Phil, and go out, Phil,
and go out of it on the "analysis performed" column.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You have on the "analysis performed" column for number 12,
you have PCR, correct?

A. At the top of the page?

Yes, I do.

Q. You didn't perform that analysis that day, did you?

A. No.

Q. But it had been performed?

Well, number 17, Mr. Simpson's blood again, you indicate RFLP. That had not
been performed, had it?

A. It had not yet been performed, but I believe it had been submitted out for
analysis and that it was in progress.

Q. So the analysis performed was -- that column was for things that had already
been done and some things that were going to be done in the future, correct?

A. No, I believe it was for the things that had already been done or things
that were in progress.

Q. Now, when you wrote "none obvious," you obviously examined the socks for
blood, didn't you?

A. I brought them out, gave them the color -- Or the color description, took a
general look at them. I did not examine them. It was just appearance. There was
no blood obvious on those socks.

Q. Did Ms. Kestler or Colin Yamauchi say to you, when you made that notation,
that they saw any blood?

A. Not that I recall, no, or I would have indicated that.

Q. And going to page -- or the page that has item number 84 on it, please. The
number is 84 A and B, and C referred to nail clippings from Nicole Brown
Simpson, correct?

A. 84 A and B refer to nail scrapings.

Q. Scrapings?

A. 84 C is the nail clippings.

Q. And you don't have any indication there about any analysis that's going to
be performed, do you?

A. I believe I do. In the comments, I indicate possible PCR conventional for 84
A, and that carries through to the other items.

Q. That was done, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

THE COURT: You're not going to be through with this witness for what?

MR. BLASIER: Not for a little while.

THE COURT: Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR.
BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Matheson, did you review records from the lab to determine how many
other times between June 29 when you looked at the socks and August 4, when Mr.
Yamauchi looked at the socks that they were looked at by other people?

A. I made a quick check, yes.

Q. And how many times were they looked at by other people?

A. It's a quick check I said I did -- I performed. I didn't find that they had
been taken out and looked at during that time at all.

Q. Were you present when Drs. Boden and Lee examined the socks?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Now, on August 4, is it correct, then, that is the first time that Mr.
Yamauchi looked at socks and determined there were blood stains visible to the
naked eye?

A. That was the first date that blood was located, yes. That's correct.

Q. Now, you indicated that there was a piece of carpeting that was cut out of
the Bronco and was put in a box. Remember that?

A. Yes, I believe it was item No. 33.

Q. And that was a piece of carpeting from the floor board area of the driver
side, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. What else was in that box?

A. That particular box contained most, if not all of the freezer storage items
or -- Yeah, freezer storage items that were collected initially in the first
couple of days of the investigation that were booked by Mr. Fung.

Q. And that would include the gloves, the knit cap, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about the stains on the console that -- you indicated
you swatched those stains on September 1, I believe, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the stains represented on the lower right hand part of this picture,
correct?

A. That's correct. The numbers that are on there are the different stain
locations.

Q. And one of those stains is No. 305?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any picture at all taken prior to the time this was taken
in the lab that shows blood stain 305?

A. No, I did not.

(Referring to large board entitled "Bronco Evidence.")

Q. Is it accurate to say that the total amount of blood on this console is
actually an extremely small amount of blood?

A. I'm not sure what you mean by extremely small.

Q. Less than a drop is enough to create smears that size, correct?

A. I'm not so sure less than a drop would be enough to do that. I have not
performed any test. That seems small for the amount of blood that was there.

Q. Have you heard any other estimate that people have given for the amount of
blood on that?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You say when you collected those stains, you swatched them
with a swatch, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is there a procedure that you have within S.I.D. for collecting blood
swatches?

A. There's an informal procedure, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could I have a new number, please?

THE CLERK: 2133.

(The instrument herein referred to as instructions included in blood sample
kits was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2113.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you what's been marked as 2133 and could you
tell me what that is?

A. Actually these are a couple of different documents. One of them is a set of
instructions that was prepared for detectives when they collect blood samples.
We supply homicide detectives in particular with small blood collection or
evidence collection kits so that if they're at a scene that doesn't require a
criminalist, other than to pick up one or two items of blood, they can perform
it themselves. The last of the three pages you gave me were the instructions
that are included with that kit.

The other two I don't have any specific LAPD footer or notation on that. I
believe they have been used during training sessions but I'm not totally sure.

Q. The last page is instructions that are given to homicide detectives and all
detectives carry or permitted to carry kits that allows them to make blood
swatches at crime scenes, correct?

A. Well, not all of them.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LAMBERT: Irrelevant and beyond the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll permit that question.

THE WITNESS: Not all the detectives have them or even would be provided with
them. We do provide them to homicide detectives when they request it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And homicide detectives are trained on how to collect
swatches.

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

THE COURT: That is sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, does scientific investigation division at
LAPD have a field procedures manual that tells people, criminalists how to
collect their evidence?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you tried to collect a sample such as on the console,
the proper procedure is to collect as much as possible, correct?

A. We want to collect as much of the blood as possible, that's correct.

Q. That's because if you want to do particular kinds of tests such as RFLP
tests, it takes a certain amount of blood?

A. That's correct. It takes a certain amount.

Q. You can't tell from looking at a smear as we see on the console, whether
there's going to be enough there or not to do RFLP tests, correct?

A. Just from looking at it, or you can have kind of a guess, no, there's no
specific test or anything you can perform.

Q. When your criminalists are there when they see a smear like that, they're
going to be potential DNA tests, do they collect all of it?

A. We ask them to collect as much as possible, up to a quarter size stain.

Q. When you say a quarter size stain, what do you mean?

A. Well, for -- With a stain that's about the size of a quarter either when it
has been dropped on a sidewalk or on a surface, or you have about a quarter
size stain worth of swatches, you can pretty much perform all the different
types of serological test that's needed to be performed. We give that as a rule
of thumb, if you can collect about a quarter size stain.

Q. Does it say that anywhere in any document they provided to your criminalist?

A. No.

Q. Now the stains that you've indicated on the console were actually discovered
on August 26, were they not?

A. I believe two of the stains were previously collected by Mr. Fung. The one
that's in the lower back, right corner of the console, I don't believe was
noticed until that date.

Q. While there were inspections of the Bronco, now, the August 26 date, that
was an event, were you present when the Bronco was searched at this time?

A. No, I was not.

Q. You were aware of that search taking place, were you not?

A. I was aware of it, yes.

Q. That was a search that was done at the direction of Michele Kestler, the
head of the lab, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Prior to August 26 and after stains 31 and 30 were
collected, are you aware of anyone who saw or reported any additional blood on
the console?

A. I don't believe they were -- we were involved in any sort of searching or
searches or anything at that point. I don't recall anybody else specifically
saying something.

Q. Did Dennis Fung, at any time, tell you that he only collected part of the
stains, number 30 and 31?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you indicated that the procedure you used, you put a
swatch on the stain and then you take the swatch and put it through a process
to allow it to dry, correct?

A. Yes. It's a set on a bindle or on a small piece of plastic under the
conditions that I collected these.

Q. Okay. And, well, describe that procedure to me in a little bit more detail?

A. The collection process like I did in the laboratory?

Q. Yeah.

A. It's simple. You have a stain on a surface we collect on small clean cotton
swatches or prepared in our laboratory. You pick a swatch. Say you have a very
small stain, you pick a swatch that's roughly the same size of your stain
dampen it in water, shake off the excess water, apply the stain, rub it around.

The whole idea you're trying to take the blood or whatever it is off of the
surface and take it into the swatch. If you have a larger stain, then you may
use 3, 4, 5, 8, whatever it takes to collect a representative sample of that
quarter or that quarter size sample that I'm talking about.

Once you feel you have as much as you want to on the swatches, you take an --
in this particular case, 'cause I was in a laboratory setting, place the
swatches on top of a plastic -- little plastic bag that I had to allow them to
dry; just air dry in the room. After they're dry, they're taken off of the
plastic and put into the bindle like you've seen before.

Q. And the bindle, all that is a little piece of paper. Like a piece of scratch
paper folded into a square, correct?

A. That's correct. Just a piece of white paper we have around the lab,
three-folded in on itself to capture the evidence inside so it doesn't get
lost.

Q. The proper procedure calls for drying the swatch before it's put in a paper
bindle, correct?

A. It's supposed to be, yes.

Q. And you said that you date and you initial the bindle, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the purpose for doing that is to be able to track, to make sure that the
bindle that you initialed and dated, if it's looked at later on down the road,
you can tell it's the same bindle that you prepared?

A. That's correct.

Q. If you date and initial a bindle and sometime later you pull what's supposed
to be that same bindle and there are no initials or dates on it, you know then
it's not the same bindle you initially put in there, correct?

A. I'd be concerned if -- like in these cases, if I dated and initialed it when
I made it and those were gone, yes. I would be concerned.

Q. Now, it's correct that all of the biological evidence, all of the blood
stains and other pieces of evidence that might have blood on them were
processed through LAPD prior to the time -- S.I.D. prior to the time they were
ever sent to any outside laboratories, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the chart has information about being sent to other
labs on here.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel on that issue.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: This is 216?

MR. LAMBERT: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm on 216. I think there was an objection, wasn't there?

MR. LAMBERT: There was --

THE COURT: Well, I overruled it on the ruling -- apparently I think I overruled
it on erroneous grounds. I think if my recollection serves me correctly without
going back through the computer to find it, I ruled that it was a business
record.

MR. LAMBERT: What it is, Your Honor, it's a summary, voluminous business
records. It's a 12 -- I think its 1209, the summary of voluminous records
exception.

MR. BLASIER: It wasn't prepared by him.

MR. LAMBERT: Doesn't have to be.

This is the same exhibit introduced at the criminal trial.

THE COURT: Doesn't make it any better.

MR. LAMBERT: No. No, I'm saying it's obviously standard, compiled of underlined
records.

THE COURT: There is no 1209.

MR. LAMBERT: I must be wrong. It's the summary of voluminous records. Exception
is --

MR. PETROCELLI: If it's in sequence.

MR. LAMBERT: Maybe it's 14 --

MR. PETROCELLI: It might be in the 14 hundred sequence, Judge.

THE COURT: Is it 1340?

MR. LAMBERT: Its actually called summary or voluminous records.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's 1509, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. The court sets aside its previous ruling that it was a
business record exception. I'll receive it under section 1509 of the evidence
code. Okay.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm reading the question and frankly I can't make sense
out of the question because the record hasn't been edited by the reporter
sufficiently that I can decipher it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me try it again.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, on chart number 216, every item on here that
was sent to Cellmark or department of justice or to the FBI was collected by
criminalists working for S.I.D. and was processed through the S.I.D. division,
correct?

A. Well, they were all processed through at some point. In other words, I
packaged and prepared it to be sent out. Some were analyzed, others were not.

As far as collected, a notable example would be item number 17, Mr. Simpson's
whole blood, we do collect that. That was received and then booked.

But at some point, all of these other items listed on this chart were processed
through our laboratory. Whether they were analyzed or not --

Q. And indeed, everything you mentioned, are there any things that are -- went
out to other labs that are not on this chart?

A. I didn't go through to check to see if there were additional items that went
out that don't appear here. I was checking the accuracy of the chart.

Q. Isn't it accurate that everything that went out to other labs was processed
through S.I.D. first?

A. That's correct. If we submitted it to an outside laboratory, we'd prepare it
and process it and present it to them.

Q. Now, the booking process involves -- well tell me what that involves;
whether an item is booked. What does that mean?

A. Basically as it's -- you have an item. You have basically scientifically
prepared it to be forwarded, whether it's a blood item that needs to be dried
and then processed or another item that needs to be bindled or put on the
shelf.

They're prepared -- collected, prepared, packaged, sealed within an envelope or
a box or a larger container of some type. Information is placed on the outside
of the package that reflects the case number, the case, what is inside of that
package. It is then taken to one of the department's property rooms.

It happens that S.I.D. has a part of our division which is property facility
called our evidence control unit.

So if a criminalist books something, normally it just goes into this evidence
control unit or part of our property division which is located adjacent to us.
If an officer collects something, normally they book it in or deliver it to a
property room that's out at the location that they work in.

It's then stored at that location, if it's appropriate for it. If not, it's
taken someplace else.

An example being, if a homicide detective collects a blood sample at a
homicide, they'll take it to their local property room where it's temporarily
stored in a freezer until one of our couriers brings it downtown to the
evidence control unit alongside of S.I.D. where we have a very large freezer to
properly store biological evidence.

Q. When an item is booked, it's entered into the LAPD computer system for
tracking, correct?

A. Not when it's booked. Sometime later it is, yes.

Q. Isn't it correct that none of the items in this case were booked until June
16?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: I'll allow it.

THE WITNESS: I believe that would be the first date item No. 1, I think was
actually booked into the system on June 16.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So the computer system that LAPD has for tracking items
would not show activity on any of the evidence items collected on the 13th and
the 14th until the 16th, correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: I'll sustain it. I didn't hear any foundation with regard to this
witness expertise on the computer.

Q. Well, we've gone through this before, have we not, Mr. Matheson, about the
computer system and how it works? You're familiar with that, aren't you?

A. I have a general knowledge of the department's computer system and a little
bit more; but still, general knowledge regarding the divisions evidence
tracking system.

Q. And you're aware that the computer system allows you at any time you can
make a printout of any particular evidence item and you can show exactly where
it's been from the date it was entered into the system until today, correct?

A. Not necessarily 'cause there are two different systems. The property system
records, when it's entered in and its general location, such as evidence
control unit, not exactly where it is within that area. And then when it is
logged out by non S.I.D. personnel, if a police officer checks something out of
property or if it goes over to court, it's recorded in the department system.

Q. And in those two Systems, none of the evidence was tracked or accounted for
in those two Systems until starting on June 16, correct?

A. Assuming the 16th is the proper date, I don't have the property report in
front of me, I believe it is. Our property division would have had no record of
those items until they were physically booked into it on that date.

MR. BLASIER: We have 1025 on the board with -- can you back out a little bit.

Mr. Matheson, you testified on direct about EAP tests, correct?

(The instrument herein referred to as Printout of sample blood cells - EAP vs.
DNA was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1025.)

THE WITNESS: A little bit, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That stands for a erythro acid phosphotase?

A. Erythrocyte acid phosphotase.

Q. And that is a genetic marker, as you described, other than ABO typing and
some of the others that you mentioned, correct?

A. It is a genetic marker, yes. It's located on the red blood cell.

Q. And --

THE COURT: Excuse me. That's on the TV screen?

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, on the screen.

THE COURT: I just want to keep the record straight. Okay. No problem.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, it's true, is it not, when you look at the genetic
marker EAP, you're examining something that's in the red blood cells, correct?

A. I -- probably on the surface of it. But it is associated with the red blood
cell that's correct.

Q. When you do DNA testing, you're not looking at something in the red blood
cells, correct?

A. That's correct. The red blood cells have no DNA in them.

Q. You're looking at two different things. Those are apples an oranges in the
sense that you've done an EAP test and get a particular finding that has no
relationship whatsoever to any DNA profile that might be in that sample,
correct?

A. If it is possible to totally separate the different cells within a blood
sample, that's correct. If you're testing just the red blood cells like you do
an EAP, then it is not correct to the DNA. That's in the white blood cell.

Q. Now you indicated that you did testing, initial testing to determine whether
you could exclude anybody, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, the nature of serology analysis is to try and exclude, that's correct.
To --

Q. I'm sorry?

A. To get more and more information, narrow the scope of a sample to try and
exclude all the people that could not have left a sample.

Q. And you performed testing in this case on the finger nail clippings or
scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson in an effort to try an exclude, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, none of these tests, none of the tests that you talked
about, including the DNA tests are tests that are used to establish unique
identification, correct?

A. That's correct. They're not like fingerprints.

Q. When you say a fingerprint, we're talking about fingerprints from your
fingers that are called dermal fingerprints?

A. I don't know about the dermal, they're fingerprints or your fingers, that's
correct.

Q. That is one forensic technique that does allow you to identify somebody
uniquely, correct?

A. That's correct. And none of the tests in this case, other than -- well, none
of serological test or DNA tests conducted in this case have the ability of
establishing uniqueness, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, all of the tests that you talked about require the
use of what you said is the product rule, correct; to establish what it means
when you say that one person or one sample appears to be the same as another
sample?

A. Once you start looking at multiple markers, that's correct. You use the
product rule, multiply them together to make the number small and smaller.

Q. And in order to use that particular rule, there must be what's called
independence between one marker and another marker, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And a good example of that, if you were trying to figure out how many people
in the population had blond hair and blue eyes, if you counted up the
percentage that had blond hair and multiplied it by the percentage that had
blue eyes, it wouldn't work in that case, would it?

A. That's correct. I believe there is an association between the --

Q. The reason you can't use that formula is because there's some connection
between blond hair and blue eyes?

A. Like I said, I believe there is, yeah.

Q. So that only works where there is absolutely no connection between one
marker and the other marker?

A. Where they're genetically independent, that's correct.

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 10. Don't talk about the case; don't do
form or express any opinions.

(At 12:00 p.m a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996
1:39 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE.

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: (Nods to Mr. Blasier.)

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. GREGORY MATHESON, the witness on the stand
at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was
examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR.
BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Matheson, let me show you a photograph that's previously been marked as
1420.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of the Bronco taken on August 10 of
1994 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Take a look at that, sir, and tell me if that appears to be
a picture of the Bronco taken on August 10 of 1994.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: That's what I'm asking him for.

THE COURT: Okay, overruled.

(Witness reviews photo.)

THE WITNESS: There are two photographs on this, the top one showing an
identification photograph that the photographer takes, showing a C number,
which is nothing more than a catalog number within the department that lists
the date, August 10, 1994, the photographer's location of Virtelli's Towing.

On the bottom part is a photograph of a Bronco looking in from -- I guess it's
a Bronco -- from the right-hand side, with a handwritten number 15 on the
corner, with no other designator.

I never saw the whole vehicle. I don't know if that's that vehicle or not.

Q. Do you recall testifying this morning about the carpeting that was removed
from the Bronco?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That was actually removed on the 14th of June, was it not?

A. It's my understanding, yes.

Q. And can you see from this picture that the carpeting in this car has already
been removed over in the area of the driver's side?

A. Yes, it appears to be.

Q. And that's consistent with the appearance of the Bronco with the carpet
having been removed as of June 14, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. This witness said he never saw a photograph of the
complete vehicle at any time.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you examined the console on September 1, it was
removed from the car, correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on the console.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you see any evidence of any blood whatsoever on that
console?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation. Calls for conclusion, speculation on the
part of the witness.

THE COURT: Sustained as to foundation for the photograph.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of any photographs of the Bronco taken
between June 14 and September 1 -- Strike that -- August 26, that shows blood
on the console?

A. I don't know of any, but I hadn't seen all the photographs.

Q. Now, could you take a look at 216 that I have in front of you there.

(Witness reviews Exhibit 216.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, reference blood samples -- reference blood sample from
a suspect, that's an extremely important piece of evidence, is it not?

A. All the evidence that is associated with the case can be important. The
reference samples are, yes.

Q. The reference sample from -- that sample that -- everything else that's
found at a crime scene might be compared to that reference sample, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. If that becomes compromised in some fashion, that can affect the validity of
anything that's compared to it, correct?

A. If there's a problem with a particular reference sample, yes, it's correct.
Then comparisons to that sample would be difficult; it would be a problem.

Q. On that list there, number 59 and 60, those are also reference samples, are
they not?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And those are reference samples for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman,
correct?

A. That's correct; they're the blood vials.

Q. Those are the EDTA purple-type vials, as we saw with Mr. Simpson's vial,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Those are directed at the time of autopsy, are they not?

A. Excuse me. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. And your chart here, or the plaintiffs' chart here, indicates that the Los
Angeles Police Department collected those sample on June 15, 1994?

A. That's correct.

Q. That accurate?

A. It is the date that they were booked into property as those items.

Q. Is says it was collected by LAPD. Was it?

A. Those particular items were prepared by the coroner's office. They were
collected by, I believe, one of the detectives associated with the case.

Q. And it indicates on there that the blood was sent to Cellmark on what date?

A. For both of these items, on June 23, 1994.

Q. Between June 15 and June 24 of 1994, where were the victims' blood samples?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know where it was?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. In the refrigerator located in the serology unit.

Q. We've already discussed that Mr. Simpson's reference vial on this chart is
indicated as number 17, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is there any way for blood to get from Mr. Simpson's reference vial into the
reference vials of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through any
mechanism other than tampering?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Improper, hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. BLASIER: We'll tie it up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I would say for the blood to get from one to another, somebody
would have to open the vials up and pour them together or something.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Redirect?

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Now, Mr. Matheson, there was some discussion during your cross-examination
about the evidence items being packaged in a box in the serology department,
the various evidence items from this case.

How were those items contained inside the box?

A. Okay. What we were talking about are the items that have the biological
evidence on them that are freezer storage, and they were kept in one large box
for simplicity. But each item inside is packaged individually or independently.

To give you an example, I've described before the process of doing the swatches
and placed inside a bindle, and the bindle placed inside an envelope, just a
small manila envelope. Then all of those envelopes, because they were going
into a larger box, were placed into another envelope, not sealed, but just
placed there so that they could be easily found.

And items like clothing items that are a little bit larger, they are put into
closed paper bags. And items such as the carpeting, because it's kind of large
and won't fit into a paper bag, a large piece of butcher paper is used to
enclose it or wrap the evidence inside of it.

Q. So is each item of evidence separately wrapped --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in its own container?

A. Yes.

Q. Also, you were asked some questions about the examination by Colin Yamauchi
on August the 4th of the socks. This was after your June 29 meeting. When you
inventoried the items, did you, yourself, after June 29, ever do an examination
of the socks?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And about when was that; do you remember?

A. I believe that was in mid-September.

Q. Okay.

And on that occasion, how did the socks appear to you when you first looked at
them?

A. Well, the socks were still the same. They looked the same as they did on the
29th.

Q. Did you see blood when you first looked at the socks?

A. It's not apparent, no. It's very difficult to see anything on it. It just
looked like the same material.

Q. And by the time you looked at them, were you aware of the fact that Mr.
Yamauchi had already discovered the existence of in blood on the socks?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. So you were looking specifically to find blood on this occasion?

A. That's correct.

Q. And were you ever able to actually see it with your eyes?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you go about doing that?

A. Well, the socks are very, very dark, like I said in my inventory, I'm not
sure whether a navy blue or a black. But they were, in essence, black.

Blood, when it dries, can also be very dark. In order to do an examination of
something like that, you do it in a laboratory condition that I did in this
case.

You have high intensity lights that can be placed near the surface to be able
to see it. And it seems -- it just takes looking at the material, like walking
into a dark room where you can't see anything, and allowing your eyes to adjust
to it with these socks. If you look at them and allow your eyes to adjust to
the color of the sock, you -- eventually, you start making out the darker areas
that had blood-stained areas.

After a little while, it becomes very easy to pick out the areas that are
actually stained, once you become accustomed to the slight difference in color.

Q. Other than making that kind of close examination, is the blood readily
apparent on the socks?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, it is not.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether
it would be possible for the blood from the reference samples to be mixed
together.

Are you aware of anyone ever mixing together the reference samples in the case?

A. No, I'm not.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, sir.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Matheson, you were aware at the time you examined the socks on the 29th,
that they were dark, weren't you?

A. Not until I pulled them out of the bag.

Q. Then you were aware of it, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were looking at them to see what kind of evidentiary value they had,
right?

A. I was making a quick determination, yes, of what evidence value there might
be.

Q. And criminalists are trained, when they collect evidence, to look at to see
whether it might have evidentiary value, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it your testimony that no one saw any blood on that sock until August 4?

A. That's correct.

Q. When it was seen on the 4th, it was a very large stain in the ankle area of
one of the socks?

A. On the 4th, I believe at that point there was just a presumptive test done
on the sock, and we didn't know the extent of staining; we just knew that there
was blood present on them. The extent -- even my testing that I did in
September, still didn't show the complete extent of the blood.

I did find a stain that I sampled.

Q. It was a large stain that was on the ankle area, wasn't it, Mr. Matheson?

A. That was one of many stains.

Q. It was a large stain, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, subject to recall, on our part of the case.

THE COURT: Your part of the case.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: We'd like to call now, Dennis Fung, Your Honor. DENNIS FUNG,
called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified
as follows:

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

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Dennis Fung, D-E-N-N-I-S, F-U-N-G.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Mr. Fung, what is your occupation?

A. I'm a criminalist.

Q. And by whom are you employed?

A. I am employed by the Los Angeles Police Department, and I am assigned to the
firearms analysis unit of the Scientific Investigation Division.

Q. Can you explain to us what a criminalist is?

A. A criminalist is somebody who applies the principles of the physical and
natural sciences to identify, collect, and analyze evidence related to a crime,
and then present his findings in a court of law.

Q. And in order to become a criminalist at the LAPD, are you required to have
some formal educational background?

A. Yes. Bachelor's degree in natural science is required.

Q. And do you have a bachelor's degree?

A. Yes, I do. I have a bachelor of science degree in criminalistics from the
California State University at Long Beach, and I also have a bachelor of arts
degree in chemistry from the California State University at Long Beach.

Q. When did you receive those degrees?

A. The criminalistics degree was received in 1982, and the chemistry degree was
in 1985.

Q. And when did you join the Scientific Investigation Division?

A. I started there in October of 1984.

Q. And have you worked there continually since that time?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And you currently are assigned to the firearms -- is it called division or
group or something?

A. I'm with the firearms analysis unit.

Q. Firearms analysis unit.

And what level of criminalist are you with LAPD?

A. I am a criminalist 3.

Q. And can you describe, please, what it takes to become a criminalist 3 with
SID?

A. A criminalist 3 requires expertise in three areas of the laboratory, and at
least four and a half years on the job.

Q. And on June 13, 1994, were you a criminalist 3 at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, turning your attention to June 13, 1994, did you receive a call in
connection with a murder investigation that day?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And about what time did you receive that call?

A. I received a telephone call at approximately 5:30 in the morning.

Q. And who was that from?

A. That was from criminalist Mazzola.

Q. And what did Ms. Mazzola tell you in that call?

A. She informed me that there was a homicide in West LA division.

Q. And what was the reason for calling you?

A. I was assigned as her criminalist 3; she was a criminalist 1; she is
required to have a criminalist 3 out with her at crime scenes.

Q. And she had received the call concerning the crime scene and then called
you; is that what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do as a result of this phone call from Ms. Mazzola?

A. I proceeded to meet Ms. Mazzola at the crime lab, and we got in the crime
scene truck and went out to the Rockingham location.

Q. Do you recall about what time you arrived at the Rockingham location?

A. Referring to my notes, I received -- or I arrived there at approximately
7:10 in the morning.

Q. Okay. And what did you do when you arrived there?

A. When I arrived there, I was briefed at the scene by Detective Vannatter.

Q. And how did he go about briefing you?

What did he say?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did Detective Vannatter give you a walk-through of the
crime scene?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What did he show you?

A. He showed me items of evidence that he was interested in, such as a red
stain on the Bronco door and a blood trail leading -- or a blood trail that
started at the street and went into the front area of the property. And then
there was also a glove on the south side of the house.

MR. BLASIER: I object and move to strike any testimony about a blood trail.
Without foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. The Court's going to permit it to show this witness's
state of mind in doing what he did.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Mr. Fung, calling your attention to this board, which
is Exhibit 155, does this board reflect some of the items of evidence that you
collected at Rockingham that day?

A. If I may.

Q. You can step down.

MR. BLASIER: Sorry, Mr. Lambert; what exhibit number was that?

MR. LAMBERT: 155.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Does this exhibit reflect some of the items of evidence
that you collected that morning at Rockingham?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And are these the things that were pointed out to you by Detective
Vannatter?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did Detective Vannatter point out these things to you
during the walk-through?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Let me ask you this: What was the next thing you did after
Detective Vannatter gave you the walk-through?

A. The first thing I did was to test a red stain on the door of the Bronco, on
the left side.

Q. Did you -- when you were at the Bronco, was the Bronco open or locked?

A. It was locked.

Q. Did you look inside the Bronco?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Were you able to observe anything inside the Bronco?

A. I saw what appeared to be red stains on the interior left door and on the
center console.

Q. And this stain that you saw on the door of the Bronco, was that collected?

A. It was collected the next day, but not --

Q. The one on the door.

A. On the outside of the door it was collected, yes.

Q. Okay.

And after collecting that stain on the side of the door, did you then proceed
to collect some of the other stains that you talked about?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You can -- you can sit down; you might want to look at your notes.

Do you recall how many of the -- of these blood drops that you discussed you
collected?

A. Yes.

I collected -- or six drops of blood were collected at the Rockingham location
in the morning.

Q. And what are the item numbers that were ultimately assigned to those blood
drops?

A. Those would be items Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Q. And which one is the item that was on the door of the Bronco?

A. Take was item No. 1.

Q. And 4 through 8, where were those items located?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Where were items 4 through 8 located?

A. 4 was located in the street. 5 and 6 were on the south portion of the
driveway. And then 7 and 8 were closer to the entrance of the house.

Q. Okay. And the first one of those drops that was collected, was that number
4?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you please describe for the jury the process that you used to collect
that blood drop number 4.

A. After labeling, measuring, and photographing the blood stain, a substrate
control is collected. This is done by using a clean pair of tweezers to apply a
cloth swatch, moistened by distilled water, to an area close to but not on the
stain.

The substrate control is then placed into a plastic bag, and then we proceed to
actually collect the blood stain. Now, between several cloth swatches, a single
thread can be used, depending on the size of the stain.

MR. BLASIER: I object to the narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: And again, a pair of tweezers that are clean are used to apply the
cloth, which is moistened by distilled water, to the stain itself.

And the stain is allowed to be absorbed onto the cloth. And once the cloth or
the blood stain is transferred onto that cloth, it is placed into another
plastic bag, and then both plastic bags are placed into a labeled coined
envelope.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And this is the process that you used to collect item
number 4?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you use that same process to collect all the other items at
Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. And you mentioned that sometimes you have to use more than one swatch. Did
that happen at some of these items at Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also mentioned the taking of a substrate control. What is the
purpose of doing that?

A. The purpose of the substrate control is to determine if there are any
substances on the area that we're collecting from that will interfere or
somehow affect the outcome of analysis.

And secondary use for the substrate control is to determine if our technique is
proper. If there's a problem with the substrate control, then the person using
-- or doing the analysis, knows there's a problem someplace in the collection
process.

Q. Did you collect the substrate control for all of these blood drops that you
checked at Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. You did ultimately collect all of the drops you've listed?

A. Yes.

Q. And after collecting those drops, did you then collect another item of
evidence at Rockingham?

A. Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Can I get Exhibit 204.

(Clerk hands Exhibit 204 to Counsel.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In this item of evidence that you then collected was the
blood that you had heard about --

A. Yes.

Q. -- or seen before?

And let me show you this exhibit here, which is 204 in this case. It has
different numbers on it.

See if you can tell from this if this appears to be the glove that you
collected.

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. Now, when you collected that glove, what did you package it in?

A. I placed the glove in a paper bag.

Q. And is that the process that you normally use for collecting that kind of an
evidence item?

A. Yes.

Q. And after -- Let me ask you this.

When you collected this glove, where was it? Was it laying on the ground or was
it on some other object?

A. The glove was located at the south side of the house. It's not on that chart
there, but if you were to walk past the driveway and south of the garage, on
the bottom of that chart there, and continue towards your right (indicating to
Exhibit 155), then that was where the glove was located.

Q. Was it on the ground?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Did -- could you describe to the jury, the -- well, its appearance when you
saw it just before you collected it.

A. The glove appeared to have red stains on it, and there was a slight
glistening appearance to areas where the glove was -- or where the blood was.

Q. Is that -- does that glistening appear to you to be blood on the glove?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you this: Based upon your experience, was that glove wet or dry
at that time?

A. It appeared dry to me.

Q. Now, what time did you finish your collection of evidence at Rockingham that
morning?

A. We finished collecting evidence approximately 10 o'clock that morning at
Rockingham.

Q. Okay. When you finished the evidence collection, is there any step that you
do before you go on to your next task?

A. Before leaving Rockingham, we did an inventory of the evidence that we had
collected to that point.

Q. And you did do that in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you then do next?

A. After that, we proceeded on to Bundy, the Bundy location.

Q. And approximately what time did you arrive at the Bundy location?

A. We arrived at Bundy at approximately 10:15 in the morning.

Q. And what did you do when you arrived at Bundy?

A. Upon arriving at Bundy, I had a briefing with Detective Lange.

Q. And did Detective Lange give you a walk-through of that crime scene?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Detective Lange was in charge of the Bundy crime scene, was he?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that
he wanted collected?

A. Yes, he did.

He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there
was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house.

Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to
you to be in?

A. They --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they
were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

MR. LAMBERT: Let me change charts here a second, Your Honor.

(Counsel displays large board entitled blood drops at Bundy June 13, 1994.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And this chart which I put up, which is Exhibit No. 67 --

MR. BLASIER: 67?

MR. LAMBERT: 67, yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Does this chart represent the location of the blood drops
that you saw that day at Bundy?

A. If I may examine it.

Q. Sure. Here's this pointer if you need it.

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Are these -- in these photographs, there are little cards with numbers next
to them. What are those?

What do those numbers reflect?

A. These numbers 112, 113, 114, 115, and 117, are photo identification numbers.

Q. And when you got to Bundy that day, which number did you start with?

A. I started with No. 100 or photo I.D. No. 100.

Q. Why did you start with No. 100?

A. I knew that the detectives were getting a search warrant for the Rockingham
location, so I wanted to have consecutive numbers at that location; so I
started with 100 at Bundy.

Q. Okay. So then you could go back to Rockingham and add other numbers later?

A. Right.

Q. Now, this one here at the desk was this No. 117?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And did you walk all the way back to the back of the house and see that
particular blood drop?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how did it appear to you?

A. It also appeared to be red, and have a tacky appearance to it.

Q. Okay. All right.

You can take your seat again, if you will.

Now, did you collect these same -- were these same five -- excuse me.

Were these five blood drops collected using the same procedures that you used
at Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you -- was there substrate control obtained for these items, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. You also collected a couple of items that are -- let me start with number
41.

You know where item 41 was collected?

A. Item 41 was collected from a -- from the dirt area which was by a tree
stump.

Q. And what was the purpose in collecting that item?

A. That item had a red stain which was very near where the male victim was.

Q. And how about item number 42? What was that item?

A. Item 42 was also a red stain that was collected by the base of the stairs.
And that was where the female victim was.

Q. And these five blood drops up here in this chart, we showed their photo I.D.
numbers. Can you tell us what the actual item numbers are for those drops that
were ultimately assigned?

A. Yes. Photo I.D. No. 112 became 47. Item 47.

Photo I.D. 113 became item 48.

Photo I.D. 114 became item 49.

Photo I.D. 115 became item number 50.

And photo I.D. 117 became item number 52.

Q. Thank you.

In addition to collecting these items of blood evidence, did you also collect
other items of evidence there at Bundy?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you collect a glove?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And a hat?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you were doing this collection of the evidence at Rockingham and
Bundy you and Andrea Mazzola divide the responsibilities between you?

A. We did not divide our responsibilities; we were working as a team.

However, I was in charge of the collection and I made the discretionary
decisions as to what to collect and how to collect them.

Q. Some of the actual, physical steps of doing the collection. Did you do some
and Andrea Mazzola do some?

A. Yes.

Q. And in terms of -- Of taking measurements as to where things were located,
did you do that yourself, or did you do that with Ms. Mazzola?

A. I did that in conjunction with Ms. Mazzola.

Q. Now, after collecting these items of evidence at Bundy, did you then do an
inventory of the items?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And having done that, did you assure yourself that
everything you had collected was in your possession?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And having done that, what did you then do?

A. After performing the inventory, we proceeded back to the Rockingham
location.

Q. And this was now to collect additional evidence from Rockingham?

A. Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Let me show you one more board.

(Counsel displays board labeled Rockingham Biological Evidence.)

MR. LAMBERT: This board, which is Exhibit number -- what exhibit number is
this?

I'm sorry; I should have had that written down.

Q. Does this board reflect evidence that you collected at Rockingham on your
second trip --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to Rockingham?

A. If I may examine it closer.

Q. Please.

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Could you -- could you tell us what item 12 is, up at the top of the chart?

A. Item 12 is a -- is two drops of what appear -- what turned out to be blood.

Q. And what portion of the house was that collected from?

A. That is in the foyer area of the front door.

Q. Okay.

A. The front entrance.

Q. And that was collected on your second trip to Rockingham?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. What is item 13?

A. Item 13 is a pair of socks that were located in the master bedroom.

Q. And was that collected on your second trip to Rockingham?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And when you collected the socks, how did you package them?

A. Those were placed in a paper bag.

Q. And then item 14, what is item 14?

A. Item 14 is a red stain that was located in from the master bathroom.

Q. And did you collect that item?

A. Yes.

Q. And were items 12 and 14 collected from the same way as you've described the
other blood evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, while you were -- when you were at Rockingham that day, did you also
receive evidence item 17?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what is evidence item 17?

A. Evidence item number 17 is a vial of reference blood from O.J. Simpson.

Q. And what -- Who delivered item 17 to you?

A. That was delivered to me by Detective Vannatter.

Q. And do you recall approximately at what time he delivered it to you?

A. Yes. That was delivered to me at 5:20 in the afternoon.

Q. While you were at Rockingham?

A. While I was at Rockingham, yes.

Q. And what did you do with evidence item 17 after you received it from
Detective Vannatter?

A. I put my initials and dated it, and then we brought it to the crime scene
truck.

Q. And after you finished this second time at Rockingham, what did you then do?

A. We then proceeded to the crime laboratory to process the evidence and start
drawing the blood evidence.

Q. And the crime laboratory is located where, sir?

A. The crime lab is located downtown, on 555 Ramirez Street.

Q. And that's where you took all the evidence that you had collected?

A. Yes.

Q. And was there a particular portion of the crime laboratory that you took the
evidence to?

A. All the evidence was brought into the evidence processing room.

Q. That's a room that's used for the purpose of processing evidence, obviously.

A. Well, that's where we bring evidence after we've been out at a crime scene.

Q. Is that room locked?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And how did you gain access to it?

A. I have a magnetic card that acts as a key.

Q. Those are cards that people at Scientific Investigation Division have?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you mentioned that there was some drying of the evidence at this time;
is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you go about drying the evidence?

How do you go about drying the evidence?

A. Well, for the drying process of blood swatches, each item of evidence is
handled individually, meaning one at a time.

First the substrate control is transferred from the bag into a labeled test
tube, and then placed into the -- placed back into the coin envelope, and then
the blood swatch is transferred from its plastic bag into a labeled test tube,
and placed back into the coin envelope.

This is done until all the items of evidence that need to be handled in this
manner are finished, and then they're put in a box and placed into a drying
cabinet.

Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that sometimes when you collect blood evidence,
you use more than one swatch to do it.

A. Yes.

Q. When you have multiple swatches, how do you handle the drying of multiple
swatches?

A. I place the swatches in the test tube, much in the same manner as I do a
single watch.

Q. If you had multiple swatches, they would all go into one test tube?

A. Yes.

Q. Then they're left for the test tube together to dry?

A. Yes.

Q. And those are the procedures that you followed on that afternoon and evening
for the blood evidence you collected at Rockingham and Bundy?

MR. BLASIER: Objection leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Were those the procedures that you followed for all of the
items of blood evidence that you had collected at Rockingham and Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, sir, on the morning of June 14, did you return to work that morning?

A. On June 14? Yes.

Q. Where did you go to work that morning?

A. I returned to the crime laboratory.

Q. And was there any further procedure that you did that morning in regard to
the evidence that you'd collected at Rockingham and Bundy?

A. Yes. At that point, I transferred the swatches from test tubes onto paper
bindles.

Q. And after you transferred the swatch from the test tube into the paper
bindle, what do you do with the paper bindle?

A. The paper bindles are labeled and placed back into the coin envelopes from
which they came.

Q. And do you do all of them at once, or do you do one at a time?

How do you process these bindles?

A. Again, each item of evidence is handled one at a time. So you never have
more than one, one item of evidence and its substrate control allotted more
than one at a time.

Q. So you put the evidence item into a bindle; it goes in the coin envelope.
How about the control swatch? What happens to it?

A. The control swatch also goes into its own bindle and then goes into its own
-- or comes into the same item number from which it came.

Q. And did you follow that procedure with all of the blood evidence that you'd
collected at Bundy and Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, at -- At the time you were doing this -- strike that.

When you completed this process of putting the swatches into bindles, did you
then do anything else in connection with this investigation?

A. I also went into the serology laboratory.

Q. And what did you do there?

A. I went in there to talk with Mr. Matheson, and Lieutenant Lange was there
also, coincidentally.

Q. And did you also talk with Colin Yamauchi at all?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) At some point did you -- did you and Matheson and Yamauchi
have a discussion of when what items of evidence you had checked would be
sampled?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Mr. Yamauchi go about doing that sampling?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did he do all that after you completed your packaging process that you just
described?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, later that morning, did you do any further collecting of the evidence?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you do in that regard?

A. We also had to process the interior portion of the Bronco.

Q. Where was the Bronco located?

A. The Bronco was located across from Parker Center, which is 150 North Center.

Q. And what particular location was the Bronco at?

A. It was in a building we refer to as the print shed.

Q. And when you arrived at the print shed, was it locked or unlocked?

A. It was locked.

Q. And how did you access it?

A. I have a key.

Q. And the Bronco was inside the print shed?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Was it locked or unlocked?

A. The Bronco was locked.

MR. LAMBERT: This is Exhibit 211, Your Honor.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 211.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) You said the Bronco was locked. How did you obtain access
to the Bronco?

A. I requested that a detective from burglary auto division come and slim-jim
the door open.

Q. And someone did that for you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you then had access to the Bronco?

A. Yes.

Q. And why don't you step down for a second with your pointer.

Is this exhibit -- does this Exhibit 211, the photographs up at the top and on
the left, reflect the condition of the Bronco as you saw it on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And those little cards that you see in the pictures are -- what do those
reflect?

A. Those reflect items of evidence which I collected.

Q. Okay. Let's start with this one right here in the middle, 22 and 23. Would
you describe what those are, please.

A. 22 is a blood stain on the interior of the driver door, and 23 is a blood
stain in the well of the handle of the driver door.

Q. 23 is actually inside that little notch we see in the picture?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there also an item 21 that's not in the photograph?

A. Yes. 21, you can see it right at the top of the -- of this picture. You just
don't see the I.D. card, and it's right here.

Q. Okay. And how about item 24? What is that item?

Can you see it from here?

A. 24 is a red stain that was on the dashboard area, next to the light switch.

(Indicating to card.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Item No. 33 up at the top, can you describe for us what
that was, please.

A. Item No. 33 was a red stain that had the appearance of a partial shoe print.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) What did you do with that stain that appeared to have a
shoe print on it?

A. I cut out the entire carpet area of the floor, driver floorboard, and
collected it.

Q. Now, on the console portion of the Bronco, way over here to the right, you
see items 31 and 30?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you collect items 31 and 30, as well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What were those?

A. Those were red stains that were very light.

Q. Did you collect all of the stains that were on the console?

A. No; I collected a representative sample of them.

Q. And how did you decide what was a representative sample?

A. I collected one -- well, I collected a swatch that was darkened by it.

Q. And how did you go about doing that?

A. In the same method that I had described before.

Q. Okay. So you collected one swatch from each of those areas by getting it
dark with blood?

A. Yes.

Q. Were these evidence items that you collected from the Bronco automobile then
taken back and dried in the manner you previously described?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they later then packaged in the manner you described?

A. Yes.

Q. And the big carpet that was cut out, item No. 33, what did you do with that
piece of evidence?

A. That I placed in a paper bag and booked it to be frozen.

Q. So it was handled a little bit differently than the swatches were handled?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let me see the property reports.

I'd like to show you some property reports which are Exhibit 141.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of Criminalist Dennis Fung pointing
to the gate at the crime scene was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 141.)

THE COURT: Before we get into the property report, let's take a ten-minute
recess.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinion.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Did I -- can I see 1412.

MR. LAMBERT: Sure. It's pages 1 through 12.

(Mr. Blasier reviews document.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Fung, let me show you pages 1 through 12 of Exhibit
1412 and ask you if you could tell us what those are.

A. These are property reports of the items of evidence I collected on June 13
and 14.

Q. And are those prepared by you, those property reports?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. An do those reflect all the evidence items take you collected at Bundy
Rockingham and in the Bronco on June 13 and 14?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the property report, would you tell me what exhibit -- what item
number 17 is listed as?

A. In the property report, 17 is listed as a as blood, comma, within a vial
labeled O.J. Simpson.

Q. Now would you take a look at this document that we've put up on the Elmo
here?

I don't know if you can see it very well from there.

Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes. That is a document filled out by or made up by Ms. Mazzola.

Q. So the handwriting on there, is that of Andrea Mazzola?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And I notice she listed on this, the blood vial as being number 18 as
opposed to number 17. How did that come about?

A. Ms. Mazzola --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. LAMBERT: By the way, Your Honor, this is exhibit 212. I should have
identified it.

(The instrument herein referred to as lab note referring to Items 17, 18, 19
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 212.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did Ms. Mazzola -- was Ms. Mazzola aware of the fact that
you received the blood vial from Detective Vannatter at Rockingham at 5:20 on
June 13?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, she was not.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you, the next day, later, tell Ms. Mazzola that you had
gotten the blood vial the day before and that it was to be listed as item
number 17?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Hearsay and leading.

THE COURT: Sustain as to leading.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you have -- did you have a conversation the next day
with Mazzola in which you discussed with her the fact that you -- that you had
received the blood vial the prior day?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, and did you tell her what the evidence item was for that blood vial?

A. I told her that it would be 17 instead of 18.

Q. And did this piece of paper that we see here, was this part of an official
report or just notes of Ms. Mazzola?

A. That was notes.

Q. In your official report, how is the blood vial listed?

A. No. The property report, the blood vial was listed as item number 17.

Q. Thank you.

Now, we've already talked about your doing a search of Mr. Simpson's Bronco
automobile.

You can take that down.

Did you ever do a search of Mr. Simpson's Bentley automobile?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When was that search done?

A. That was done on June 30.

Q. And where was that done?

A. That was also done in the print shed.

Q. And what were you looking for specifically in that search?

A. In that search, I was looking for blood within the interior of the Bentley
and a knife.

Q. And did you find any knife in the Bentley?

A. I found a small pocket knife, but that didn't fit the criterion for what we
were looking for.

Q. Did you find any blood inside the Bentley?

A. No. We could not detect the presence of blood within that vehicle.

Q. Is there a test that you use for the purposes of determining whether blood
is presumptively present or not?

A. Yes. The presumptive tests using the reagent phenolphthalein and hydrogen
peroxide was used.

Q. And that test can tell whether a stain is presumptively blood or not blood?

A. It detects the presence of blood.

Q. Did you use that test on the interior of the Bronco?

A. Bronco or Bentley?

Q. I'm sorry, thank you. The interior of the Bentley?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In how many places in the interior of the Bentley did you check; do you
recall?

A. There were numerous areas checked. Anytime I saw what appeared to be an
anomaly in the interior -- it was a black interior so it was pretty hard to
detect blood -- Anytime I saw an anomaly, I went ahead and swabbed it to see if
it was positive or not.

Q. Anything that you thought could possibly be blood, you tested it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you find any blood at all?

A. No.

Q. Did there come a time after June 14 when you returned to the Bundy location
to collect any further blood evidence?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when was that?

A. That was on July 3, 1994.

Q. Who asked to go to Bundy on that occasion?

A. Detectives Lange and Vannatter requested that I come back to the Bundy
scene.

Q. And when you arrived, who was there?

A. When I arrived, Detectives Lange and Vannatter were there.

Q. And what did they ask you to collect on that occasion?

A. There was a -- there was this blood on the back gate of Bundy and they
pointed it out to me.

Q. And did you collect it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did that blood get item numbers?

A. Yes. Those items -- those items became numbers 115, 116, and 117.

Q. And was that blood collected in the manner that you previously described?

A. Yes.

Q. And those blood drops on that back gate, did you see them when you were
collecting evidence on June 13 at Bundy?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Do you remember examining the back gate to look for evidence at all?

A. Not specifically, no.

MR. LAMBERT: I'd like at this time, Your Honor, to move in some exhibits, items
204, 211, 1412 and 208.

208 is partially already stipulated to, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Can I see what they are?

MR. LAMBERT: One of them is the glove.

1412 is the thing you just looked at.

211 is the board -- the Bronco board.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. They're received.

(The instrument herein referred to as a box and contents Nos. 9, 10, 18 and 27
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 204.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a box and contents Nos. 9, 10, 18 and 27
was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 204.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a posterboard entitled "Bronco Evidence"
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 211.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a posterboard entitled "Bronco Evidence"
was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 211.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a blank property report was received in
evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1412.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Rockingham interior biological evidence
posterboard was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 208.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Rockingham interior biological evidence
posterboard was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 208.)

MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Fung.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. How are you today?

A. Good.

Q. Mr. Fung, have you spent any time preparing for your testimony in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And since Mr. Simpson was acquitted in October of 1995, how much time would
you say that you've spent on the Simpson case total; just an approximation?

A. About 48 hours.

Q. And of that 48 hours, how much of that time was spent at the behest of the
plaintiffs' attorneys in the civil case?

A. Probably about 40.

Q. And of the 40 hours that you spent with the plaintiffs, can you -- can you
break that down for me and tell me approximately how many times you've met with
plaintiffs' attorneys or representatives of plaintiffs?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence, "spent with the plaintiff,"
Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: I thought I said plaintiffs' attorneys and plaintiffs'
representatives.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I've spent about six -- six hours with the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Q. And of the other 34 hours, what was that devoted to?

A. Reading all that testimony, going through the transcripts.

Q. That was reading the nine days of your direct and cross-examination from the
criminal trial?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you do that on city time?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

MR. BLASIER: Goes to bias.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: Goes to bias.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure how it's being worked out.

Yes, it was on city time.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So you got approval, or someone apparently got approval to
have you spend approximately 40 hours, on city time, working for the plaintiffs
in this case, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, "working for."

THE COURT: Overruled. I'm not sure exactly how or what's been worked out, but I
was doing it on city time.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you keeping track of your billing so that you can bill
the plaintiffs?

A. They told me to keep track of the hours that I worked on it, yes.

Q. Have you ever worked for plaintiffs on a civil case before other than the
Simpson case?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Now, as of June 13, when you started working on this case, had you received
any formal training at all on quantities of blood that are necessary to be
collected for DNA testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And what sort of training had you received?

A. We received -- I received a brief lecture on the amount needed for RFLP
testing.

Q. One brief lecture?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were you told was the amount needed for RFLP testing?

A. At this time, I was told they needed a quarter to a -- I think it was a
dime-sized drop of blood to be collected.

Q. By the way, do you have a procedures manual within S.I.D. that tells you how
you're supposed to collect evidence?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm aware that one had been drafted but it is not an official
document.

MR. BLASIER:

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that true since you started working for S.I.D. from 1986
or '84, excuse me?

A. Is what true?

Q. That there has been no procedures manual within S.I.D. that tell
criminalists how to collect evidence?

A. There's no manual written, no.

Q. And as of your testimony in the criminal case, there was a manual in draft
form, correct?

A. During the criminal trial, yes.

Q. And there's still a manual; it is only in draft form, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've never seen it?

A. I've seen it now, but I haven't read everything.

Q. When you were preparing for your testimony in the criminal case, did deputy
District Attorney Hank Goldberg have to tell you what DNA was?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you know what DNA was at the time you testified in the
criminal case?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, what is the procedure that is used to call a
criminalist to a crime scene?

Would you describe that in general to me?

A. I can in general. What usually happens --

Q. Um-hum?

A. -- a detective will request that -- well, they'll call you up, detective
headquarters division, and tell them that he needs a criminalist. They will go
ahead and make notifications.

Q. And how, when that's done, generally isn't that done a soon as a crime scene
is discovered?

A. I can't really speak from that end of the -- from that position cause I
haven't been at the beginning of a crime scene.

Q. Were there any criminalists called to the Bundy crime scene between 12
o'clock at night on the 13th and 10 o'clock in the morning, to your knowledge?

A. No.

Q. Is it standard practice for there to be a ten-hour delay between the time a
crime scene is discovered and when a criminalist is called?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't it important to you that you be called to a scene as soon as
possible?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. It depends on the scene.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Evidence can change at a crime scene, can it not?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. Biological evidence can change substantially, can't it?

A. Depending on the conditions, yes, it can.

Q. Hair and trace evidence can get moved all around, can't it?

A. Again, depending on the conditions. It would depend.

Q. There are changes that can occur to bodies, as well, in that period of ten
hours, are there not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of any instance in any other case, other than
this one where it took ten hours to have a criminalist called to a crime scene?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. And as of June 13 of 1994, how long had Andrea Mazzola been a criminalist?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, there's testimony about her working on this case.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: There was testimony about her working on this case.

THE COURT: Why don't you ask her.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you have that information, Mr. Fung?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Well, I think it is irrelevant. This is the wrong person to ask.

MR. BLASIER: He's the witness that's here, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were supervising, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. She was a beginner, wasn't she.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: She was a criminalist 1.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It was only her third crime scene wasn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of how many crime scenes she worked at prior
to this one?

A. I'm not exactly sure of the number I knew -- I know it is less than ten.

Q. It is two, isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation, argumentative?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Andrea Mazzola was placed in charge of the crime scene at
Bundy and Rockingham wasn't she?

A. She was initially listed as the officer in charge. However, when I found out
the scope of the crime, I assumed the officer in charge position.

Q. At what time was that?

A. I don't know the exact time. It was somewhat into the crime scene at
Rockingham.

Q. Before you went to Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you say the scope of the case, what did you mean by that?

A. That it was a high profile case.

Q. High profile meaning what?

A. There was a celebrity involved.

Q. Was there any other reason why she was not kept in charge?

A. Not that can think of, no.

Q. Let me show you what's been previously marked as exhibit 202.

Do you recognize this document, Mr. Fung?

(The instrument herein referred to as crime scene checklist was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 202.)

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is that document?

A. That is a crime scene checklist?

Q. And tell us how that document gets generated?

A. Well, when a call gets made to a criminalist, they start filling it out and
we fill out the blanks as we go along as we see the information become
appropriate.

Q. Now Mr. Fung, isn't it correct that on that form, Andrea Mazzola is listed
as the officer in charge?

A. That's correct.

Q. And she was actually the first one called to the scene, wasn't she?

A. The detective headquarters division did notify her.

Q. And were you dispatched to the Bundy scene first or the Rockingham scene?

A. We were requested to respond to the Rockingham scene first.

Q. You were never told to go to Bundy and then that order was changed to go to
Rockingham instead, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, is it -- is it standard procedure at a crime scene to -- well, let me
withdraw and ask it this way.

What is crime scene tape used for?

A. Crime scene tape is used to delineate or used to delineate the perimeters of
a crime scene.

Q. All right. And is one of the main reasons for that is to keep people away
from potential evidence?

A. That and it also helps the officers know what the parimeters of the crime
scene are.

Q. And during your several visits to the Rockingham crime scene, both in the
morning and in the afternoon, was there ever any crime scene tape put around
the Bronco?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, can you See that board okay?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is -- what number is that?

A. 155.

Q. Now you arrived at the Rockingham scene at about what time?

A. I arrived at Rockingham at 7:10 in the morning.

Q. By the way, when did you first become aware that there was a celebrity
involved in this case?

A. During the walk through, Detective Vannatter told me this was the residence
of O.J. Simpson.

THE COURT: What are you doing?

MR. P. BAKER: Booking that. I didn't want to drip. (Laughter.)

MR. BLASIER: You indicated that that morning when you got there, that Detective
Vannatter pointed out a blood stain on the Bronco?

A. I believe so.

Q. Didn't Detective Fuhrman point that out to you?

A. I believe it was Detective Vannatter.

Q. Detective Fuhrman was there, was he not?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Did Detective Fuhrman ever point out any stains on the Bronco to you that
morning?

A. I don't recall him pointing anything out. I do recall that he was there. But
to the best of my recollection, it was Detective Vannatter that pointed out the
glove.

Q. Now, you observed the blood spot near the door, correct?

A. The door of the --

Q. Of the Bronco?

A. -- Bronco. It was on the handle of the Bronco, yes.

Q. Did you collect that?

A. I was present during the collection and participated in phases of it, yes.

Q. You testified on direct that you collected that. Did you prepare the Swatch
on that?

A. The actual manipulation of the tweezers was done by Ms. Mazzola. However,
collection involves identification, measuring and documentation. So I was -- I
did collect the stain and we were working as a team also.

Q. We have a picture also on the television.

MR. BLASIER: Which is that, Phil?

MR. P. BAKER: 108.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that a picture of you pointing out a spot on the door of
the Bronco?

A. Wrote it is.

Q. Were there any pictures of Andrea Mazzola pointing out a spot, that spot or
doing any work on it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you testified about how blood drops -- I think you
described it as a trail going from the Bronco to the residence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You have no way of knowing what direction -- if it is indeed a trail -- that
it is going, whether it is going from the residence to the Bronco or the other
way around, do you?

A. Well, there is one spot that does have directionality to it.

Q. What spot is that?

A. That is item number 7 and that's the far right bottom picture. You can see
some trailing there.

Q. Any other item have any directionality to it?

A. I wouldn't call any directionality to any of the others.

Q. You have no way of knowing whether the other drops -- whether the other
drops got there vis-a-vis drop number 7 or any of the other drops, do you?

A. I can tell that they were all fresh drops and -- but as far as minute -- a
minute-to-minute thing, no.

Q. When you say fresh drops, you're saying that because of what?

A. Their appearance.

Q. And their appearance is what? What tells you that they're fresh?

A. They were red and slightly tacky.

Q. Okay. Why don't you step down here for a second look at the picture on the
bottom right, which has the card number C on it.

What is that -- does that picture represent?

A. That represents another drop of -- well, it is a red stain that was tested
presumptively above positive with phenolphthalein.

Q. And is that the only apparent blood in that picture?

A. Well, yeah.

Q. Okay. This item up here to the left of the C, that's not blood; is it?

A. I don't recall if it is or not.

Q. If you had seen blood, what you thought was blood right next to C, you would
have marked that, would you not?

A. If it was in that very close proximity, I may or may not, depending on the
type of scene it was. At that scene, I could very well have marked both those
stains C.

Q. Did you ever make any notation, in any document whatsoever that C stands for
two stains rather than one stain?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You would never make an assessment it was blood just based on looking at a
picture, would you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. What's that board?

MR. PETROCELLI: 155.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I wouldn't. I would rather have it tested.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Mr. Fung, the red dots on the chart up here, are those
the approximate locations of the drops that you identified?

A. The most approximate drops, yes.

Q. Did you find any drops of a parent blood between this one, which is -- you
do know which number this one is, 6?

A. Let me check my notes.

Q. 6N.

(Indicating to diagram 155.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And the garage area on the south side of the house?

A. There was a stain that we found positive for with phenolphythalein on a
prior on the south side of the house.

Q. Well, I'm talking about on the ground back here.

A. No, not on the ground.

Q. You would never testify that something was blood just based on a
phenolphthalein test, would you?

A. I would say that it was presumptively positive.

Q. Tell me all -- I'm sorry. Were you done?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Tell me all the things that give a presumptive positive reading that aren't
blood with a phenolphthalein test?

A. There are items that have vegetable peroxidase in them that are reported in
the literature to give positive, false positives. And there are certain
chemicals known as oxidizers that will give false positives to other types of
presumptive tests.

Q. There are oxidizing agents that also give a false positive, correct?

A. Are we speaking in terms of the two-step phenolphthalein hydroperoxidase?

Q. I'm talking about the phenolphthalein test, correct?

A. I believe that in the two-step phenolphthalein test only vegetable
peroxidase give a false positive with addition of hydrogen peroxide. The
chemical oxidizers will turn the phenolphthalein pink before the addition of
hydrogen peroxide.

Q. What Sort of vegetable materials are you talking about that will give a
false positive?

A. Vegetable peroxidase, that's an enzyme I believe contained within vegetable
or plant material. Some of them include apple, beet root . . .

Q. Apricots, black berries, artichokes, potatoes, turnips, cabbage; all of
those can give you positive phenolphthalein tests, can't they?

A. They -- I'm not sure about all of them, but many of those on the list do
sound familiar.

Q. None of those are blood, are they?

A. None of them have the initial appearance of blood.

Q. When you --

A. However --

Q. When you do a positive, when you do a test, you collect a blood stain
before, to run confirmatory testing after you've done a phenolphthalein test,
correct?

A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q. Yeah. You don't make an assessment that something is blood just based on a
presumptive test alone, do you?

A. I don't know. I mean, no, I don't.

Q. And what you do is, you collect it and you take it back to the lab and you
do what's called confirmatory testing. And if it is blood, you can determine
that back there, correct?

A. Well, it is done by somebody else but, yes.

Q. Okay. You never collected -- well, let me strike that.

Now, Mr. Fung, this is an overview of Rockingham that contains more information
than the one we looked at?

A. Yes.

Q. This is number --

MR. P. BAKER: I believe it is 145.

MR. BLASIER: 145.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell me the distance from the air conditioner
indicated here opposite Mr. Kaelin's room and the gate along Rockingham?

A. From the air conditioner to the gate?

Q. Yes.

A. I can give you an approximate distance.

Q. Okay.

(Witness reviews documents in notebook.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you something that might help: Exhibit 905.
Well, you're looking at the same thing.

A. Yeah. But it doesn't have the air conditioner on it.

Q. Well, would you agree that it appears to be approximately 250 feet from the
gate to the air conditioner?

A. Somewhere between 250 and 220.

Q. Okay. By the way, isn't one of your jobs to measure distances such as that?

A. It is my job to measure distances relative to the evidence I collect.

Q. Okay. And did you take any measurement from the area where the glove was
found?

A. I measured the distance from the west wall of the garage to the glove.

Q. Okay. Why don't you tell us what that distance is?

A. The distance was measured as 118 feet east of the west wall of the garage.

Q. So that would be indicated in this corner, where my pen is?

A. Yes.

Q. The lower left corner of the garage as it appears on the diagram?

A. It would be from this point here.

Q. Okay. 119 feet you say?

A. 118.

Q. 118 feet.

Now, did you find a single blood drop or single drop that was collected and
determined to be blood anywhere along this pathway?

A. On the ground?

Q. Correct.

A. No.

Q. Did you find any drop along here anywhere that was tested and confirmed to
be blood?

A. No.

Q. Did you find any tissue samples on the air conditioner?

A. No.

Q. Did you find any shoe prints or shoe imprints in blood along this entire 119
feet?

A. I could not detect any.

Q. Did you find any shoe impressions that appear to be in blood anywhere
outside of Rockingham in the driveway area?

A. No.

Q. Did you find any evidence whatsoever indicating that anyone climbed over the
fence from the air conditioner to the front gate?

A. No.

Q. When you found that glove back there, it didn't have any dirt on it at all,
did it?

A. I did not examine the glove that closely.

Q. Well, when you collect evidence, you try to preserve evidence that might be
attached to a piece of evidence like a glove, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you observe any dirt on that glove?

A. I didn't observe any and I didn't look for any.

Q. There weren't any cobwebs on it either, were there?

A. No cobwebs.

Q. No evidence of any kind of insect activity, was there?

A. I don't remember any.

Q. There was no evidence of any hair and fiber that you collected anywhere from
the gate area back to the air conditioner; is that correct?

A. There -- Well, excluding the glove?

Q. Excluding the glove.

A. I did not find any or I did not collect any hair and fiber evidence from
that -- that area that was described by you.

Q. By the way, animal blood gives you a positive phenolphthalein, doesn't it?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Such as from a dog? If you tested it from a dog, you'd get a positive
phenolphthalein test?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, it is accurate, is it not, that there is a door that goes into the
house at Rockingham along the side of this garage, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it also accurate that there is a second door into the residence and
the area I'm indicating, just behind the garage that goes into a laundry room
area, correct?

A. I don't recall that door. I don't dispute it, but I don't recall if there is
or not.

Q. There isn't a single door into the Rockingham house from the air conditioner
to the right, is there?

A. No, there is not.

Q. By the way, there is also a -- it is not depicted in that diagram, but there
is a rather large tree on the corner of the garage right where I'm pointing, is
there not? Do you remember that?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Do you remember a second large tree just past the first one?

A. I know there were trees, but I don't know the exact position. I don't
remember the exact positions.

Q. It was a relatively tight squeeze to get around this corner, is it not? You
have to duck, must be short like me to get under those trees, right?

A. I remember it was tight in some positions.

Q. Now, is it considered to be a good technique to conduct phenolphthalein
testing on items in the field that can be collected and taken back to the lab?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did a phenolphthalein test on that group while you were
at the scene?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Doing a phenolphthalein test actually dries some of the potential evidence,
does is it not?

A. Not if it is done in a careful manner.

Q. Well, the spot on the Bronco door, that was ruined for any further testing
because of the phenolphthalein test, was it not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't believe it was ruined. It started out at as a very light
spot and we collected what was there.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know whether anyone was ever able to type that at
all beyond your phenolphthalein test?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: I am not aware of any further testing done on item No. 1.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, is it an acceptable procedure in your mind to do a
phenolphthalein test on a piece of evidence like the glove that is going to be
collected and taken back to the lab at the scene.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: As posed, sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Detective Vannatter told you to do that test, didn't he?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection.

THE WITNESS: He asked that I perform that test, yes.

Q. You didn't want to do that test, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It was important to him at that point in the investigation, so I
did perform that test for him.

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't want to do that test, did you?

A. I had -- I had no problem doing that test.

Q. You knew it was bad technique to do that test, didn't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You refused to do a phenolphthalein test on the knit cap at
Bundy for that same reason.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you do a phenolphthalein test on the knit cap at Bundy
itself?

A. I was never asked to.

Q. You were never asked to?

When you manipulate evidence at a crime scene, you can lose trace evidence, can
you not?

A. It is possible to.

Q. And you try to leave items of physical evidence that you're going to collect
undisturbed, if possible so that you don't disturb trace evidence, correct?

A. When -- when? Yes. That is the preferable method.

Q. And anytime you do something like a phenolphthalein test on a piece of
evidence, you have to manipulate it, don't you?

A. If it is done carefully, I don't, sometimes; or if it is done carefully, the
damage to the evidence will be minimal.

Q. When you manipulate evidence at a crime scene valuable trace evidence can be
lost; isn't that correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It is possible for it to be lost. However, if it is done
carefully, evidence isn't lost.

Q. Anytime you touch a piece of physical evidence at the scene, you can also
transfer evidence from the piece of evidence for your hand or your glove, can't
you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for
speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you wearing gloves when you collected the glove?

A. I don't recall if I was or not.

Q. By the way, which part of the glove did you handle to do the phenolphthalein
test?

A. There was a -- I didn't actually handle the glove. I would have used a
cotton applicator to touch the glove with the -- With a wet cotton swab and
then tested the cotton swab.

Q. In what area of the glove do you remember?

A. Whatever was facing up and had the red stain on it.

Q. Do you know whether you were wearing gloves at time that the drops on the
driveway were collected?

A. I know Ms. Mazzola was.

Q. Now, you didn't collect any of those drops, did you?

A. As I had described before, the collection process involves many steps, and I
was involved in the collection of those blood stains.

Q. Do you remember, you testified at a grand jury here in this case, did you
not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that was right after -- it was before the preliminary hearing, was it
not?

A. Yes.

Q. It was very close in time to when you processed the crime scene, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. It was in -- I believe early July, correct, of '94?

A. Somewhere in there, yes.

Q. Do you remember being asked questions regarding the spot on the Bronco door?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember testifying at the grand jury hearing that you recovered
them in the manner described and that is the procedure you described to us?

A. I did say that I collected them because Ms. Mazzola and I were working as a
team.

Q. But you said that you did that work, correct?

A. In my mind, when we were working as a team, I did it. I was in charge of
her. I was in charge of her and she acted under my direction.

Q. She collected all the Bundy drops, didn't she?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: She collected most of the Bundy drops. However, I did collect some
of them myself.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember being asked this question at the grand jury
hearing.

"Q. Did you attempt to retrieve and preserve the blood found in those blood
drops referring to Bundy?

"A. Yes, I did.

"Q. What did you do?

"A. I transfered the blood drops onto cloth squares or cloth swatches."

Do You remember testifying that way, Mr.'Fung?

A. Yes.

Q. That wasn't true, was it?

A. I was answering the questions from a position of what was done and not of a
position of who did what.

Q. You were asked what did you do, Mr. Fung, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You said, "I transferred the blood onto cloth squares," didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. That wasn't true, was it?

A. Because we were working as a team and she was working under my direction, I
don't see that as being a lie.

Q. You never mentioned Andrea Mazzola once during the grand jury proceedings,
did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were attempting to minimize Angela Mazzola's
involvement in the processing of this crime scene because she was so
inexperienced; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection and argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Which ground, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Both.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Fung, do you remember testifying that when you're involved in
the mental aspect of the crime scene investigation, then you use the word "I"
to describe what somebody else might have done?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LAMBERT: Could I get the page and line evidence reference?

MR. BLASIER: 22937, line 1.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember that testimony?

A. Can you repeat that?

Q. Let me read the question. (Reading:)

"Q. If you were to divide the work up of a criminalist into the mental
component of deciding what to collect, what not to collect in the discretionary
type decisions and then a physical component of actually collecting which
component were you involved in do you believe primarily.

"A. Primarily I was involved with the mental aspect of the crime scene
investigation."

Remember that testimony?

A. Vaguely.

Q. And that's your basis for using the term "I" when you're asked when you did
something or not; is that correct?

A. That's one of the bases, yeah.

Q. By the way, when we talk about hair and fiber evidence, tell us what that
is.

A. Hair and fiber evidence is, or it can be hair that is left at a crime scene
or fibers that are left at a crime scene.

Q. Fiber from something like a carpet or a piece of clothing or any -- Any item
that is made out of cloth, for instance, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Or synthetic material?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't it true, Mr. Fung, that where you have a scene like the Bundy
scene, where Mr. Simpson was a frequent visitor, the presence of hair and fiber
that might be consistent with him is not unusual; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me ask you hypothetically, Mr. Fung; isn't it true that
where you have a crime scene that is frequented by a particular person, it is
not unusual to find hair or fiber that's consistent with that person at that
crime scene, correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Outside the scope, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. You may call him as your own witness when your turn
comes.

MR. BLASIER: We'll do that, Your Honor

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Who was in charge of the crime scene at Bundy?

A. The officer in charge.

Q. Who was in charge of processing the crime scene?

THE COURT: Sustain my own objection as being vague.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What was your function at Bundy?

A. I was in charge of collecting evidence.

Q. Okay. Are you the one that was in charge of deciding what evidence should be
collected?

A. Yes, ultimately.

Q. And you were in charge of deciding where evidence was located, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were in charge of conducting searches of the area to find all relevant
evidence, correct?

A. My search was directed towards the cage area and the walkway north of the
residence.

Q. I move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell us what your responsibility was again?

A. My search was directed towards the caged area of the Bundy location and the
walkway north of it, extending into the driveway area.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: We're going to have a board put up here in a second.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a ten minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't
talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you, Mr. Fung.

I have one question on the area at Rockingham. Isn't it true that from the area
of the diagram, there's a -- there's a point in the Rockingham house where the
walkway becomes very, very narrow?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, you can see it fairly well in the bottom left -- actually, the
bottom left picture, can you not?

A. Yes.

Q. It's extremely narrow in there, is it not?

A. It's narrow.

Q. And did you measure the distance from the corner here, where it gets real
narrow, back to the air conditioner?

A. I don't remember taking measurements of the air conditioner itself.

Q. How about where the glove was found, as compared to the corner where it's
very narrow?

A. I'm referring to my notes. From the -- from this point to the glove was 19
feet, ten inches.

Q. Okay.

Now, we put the Bundy board back up, which is number --

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 67.

MR. BLASIER: -- 67.

Now, Mr. Leonard, you can go ahead and sit back down.

(Counsel resumes his seat.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, the distance from Mr. Simpson's gate to where
the glove was found is even longer than the distance from Bundy Drive all the
way back to the alleyway at Bundy, isn't it?

A. The distance from the gate to the Bundy glove? And that distance -- I
haven't done a measurement myself. I can take a look.

Q. Well, you can take a look. It's only 170 feet from the alleyway to Bundy,
according to plaintiffs' chart here, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. It's about 250 feet from Mr. Simpson's gate to where the glove was found?

A. Between that and --

Q. Approximately?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. 220.

Now, did I understand you to say that you confined yourself to just the walkway
and the caged-in area?

A. That is where my search was directed.

Q. Were you the criminalist in charge of processing that scene?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there somebody else that was to look other places?

A. Well, the detective had looked all over the crime scene, and he pointed out
the items of evidence he wanted me to concentrate on.

Q. That was Detective Lange?

A. Yes.

Q. He never told you about any blood on the back gate, did he?

A. I don't remember him telling me about the blood on the back gate.

Q. Now, the back gate is part of the walkway, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, did you confine your search to just everything within a couple inches
of the ground?

A. No.

Q. So you looked higher than that. Was your area of responsibility a little
higher than that?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times did you walk in and out of the back gate while you were
processing that scene?

A. Several.

Q. And is it your testimony that you never looked at it?

A. It's my testimony that I don't remember seeing or having been -- I don't
remember being told about the blood on the back gate on that day, and I don't
remember seeing blood on the back gate that day.

Q. Your testimony was that you never looked at the back gate while you were at
Bundy?

A. I may have seen it, but I didn't search it, that I can remember.

Q. How long were you at Bundy?

A. I was there for about four hours.

Q. It was light the whole time, wasn't it?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. You had access to the whole area the whole time, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Anybody ever tell you go look at the gate?

A. Nobody ever told me that.

Q. Now, you had made a reference in your direct testimony about collecting
things sequentially in terms of assigning them numbers. Do you recall that?

A. Generally, we like to collect items of evidence sequentially, but that's not
a hard and fast rule.

Q. Well, you try to do that. Tell me why you try to do that.

A. Well, we try to number items of evidence in a logical manner; and if it's in
a logical manner, then, usually, they go in a sequential order in regard to
proximity.

Q. Now, who is it that directs the photographer to take pictures when you're
marking evidence?

A. That would be me or the criminalist in charge of the scene.

Q. And is it accurate that you have -- essentially, you have the photographer
walking with you, as you assign numbers to things in a sequential order?

A. No, not really. I'll lay out the numbers and then have the photographer take
pictures after I've gone through, most of the time. But again, that's not a
hard and fast rule, either.

Q. Now, Mr. Fung, you are the one that assigns the numbers that are on the
little cards, correct?

A. Yes, I was at that scene.

Q. And all the cards that appear on the board there, 67, are cards that you
prepared and put on the ground, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, as far as the Bundy drops are concerned, the first drop is No. 112; is
that correct?

A. The first drop along the trail?

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And you gave that No. 112 as being the first drop closest to the bodies,
correct?

A. Excuse me?

Q. You can come look.

A. Yes; 112 is this one.

Q. And you're trying to process the crime scene in a logical sequence?

A. Attempting to, yes.

Q. And you gave the next drop 113, which was the next one in sequence. You gave
that a photo I.D. No. 113, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You went further down the path and we get to 114, which is the next drop in
the sequence, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You assigned that 114 consecutively, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Then we get back right by the back gate, we have 115, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you assigned that sequentially because that's the next drop on the way
out?

A. Correct.

Q. By the way, how far is 115 from the gate?

A. From this gate?

Q. The back gate.

A. I don't have that measurement.

Q. Very close, isn't it?

A. Oh, it's possibly within 10 feet.

Q. Mr. Fung, what was No. 116?

A. No. 116 was a red stain on the front gate.

MR. BLASIER: We need a new number, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We want a new number.

MR. BLASIER: The next number.

THE CLERK: 2134.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of stain No. 116 was marked
for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2134.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, let me show you what's been marked as 2134. That
is a picture of stain 116 is it not?

A. That is a picture of photo item 116.

Q. Okay.

A. Or photo No. 116, which became item number --

Q. Fifty what?

A. 51.

Q. So you went from item 115, all the way back to the front gate, and put the
card on 116 and had a picture taken, correct?

A. Well, yes.

Q. Then you went all the way back out to 117, which is a drop on the other side
of the back gate, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. This is a different 116 than the one you collected on July 3, isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. You looked on that back gate; you didn't find any blood. Somebody had told
you to look at the gate, and you went to the front gate, didn't you?

A. I never -- I don't recall looking on the back gate that day.

Q. Why did you leave your sequence at 115 and go back to the front gate and
then come back out the back?

A. Ms. Mazzola saw that there was additional blood on the front gate and said
this would be a good area to get more blood from, because it was in a different
area than the other items of blood we had checked around the caged-in area.

So I agreed to give her a number and let her collect that blood from the front
gate.

Q. She was collecting all of this blood along here, wasn't she?

A. Well, you have to realize that we are numbering first; and then as we're
going along, if we see something additionally and she's doing something else
and wants to -- and she wanted to collect the 116 while I was numbering
additional items of evidence down the line. She came up to me and said, "I
think we should collect more blood from the front," and I gave her that number.

Q. And you collected one sample from the front gate and went back out to the
back?

A. I gave her -- I said, "Go ahead and get that blood that you want to collect,
photo I.D. No. 116."

Q. Is it your testimony that it's just a coincidence that the blood drop No.
116 collected on July 3 from the back gate has the same number as stain 6, 116
which you collected on the 13th?

A. It's quite a coincidence.

Q. Now, when you got to the Bundy scene, the print people were already looking
for fingerprints, weren't they?

A. At the Bundy scene?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. The things are checked for fingerprints, they put on graphite on objects to
try and determine whether there's a print there, correct? A "dusting" it's
called?

A. Well, they use dusting powder. It's made of different chemicals or different
compounds.

Q. When you're dusting for prints, if you get that on the blood, you can really
mess up the blood, can't you?

A. It's preferable to collect blood before printing.

Q. It's a horrible idea to have the print people out there before you even get
to the scene, isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Who was responsible for sending the print people out first?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Same objection.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have a ground, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Beyond the scope of the direct. I think this witness is only
testifying to blood and the items he recovered.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were in charge of this crime scene, were you not,
processing, Mr. Fung?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection.

THE WITNESS: Is there an objection?

THE COURT: You can answer it.

MR. BLASIER: You can try that one.

THE WITNESS: I was in charge of the evidence portion of the crime scene.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Including?

A. Of the collection force.

Q. You weren't in charge of the fingerprint people?

A. I -- to a certain extent, I would tell them when I was done with my
collection, and then give them the go-ahead to start with their portion of the
crime-scene processing.

Q. They had already started before you even got there, didn't they?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: They had done certain portions of the crime scene.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What portions?

A. I don't have a vivid memory of what portions they had started. They were
working on the inside; I do remember that, and possibly the railings of the
walkway.

Q. By the way, Mr. Fung, in this entire area that you served, there wasn't a
single fingerprint in blood, was there?

A. I'm not aware of any.

Q. The Bundy glove that was on the ground had very little blood on it, didn't
it?

A. I did not examine the Bundy glove very closely for the presence of blood. I
don't remember how much blood was on it?

Q. Didn't you see it when you got back to the lab, as well.

A. I did see it, but I didn't take a note of how much blood was on it or -- I
know that there was some blood on it, but I didn't examine it very closely?

Q. By the way, at one point, isn't it accurate that you took the Rockingham
glove, carried it from Rockingham to Bundy, and took it into the Bundy crime
scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body, so that Detective Lange could compare
it with the Bundy glove?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's a horrible technique, isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: On that basis, it's overruled.

MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative and beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained as to that one.

MR. BLASIER: Beyond the scope?

THE COURT: No, argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it acceptable procedure to take evidence from one bloody
scene like that glove and take it to another second crime scene?

A. If the evidence is handled in a careful manner, I don't see a problem with
it.

Q. Now, you didn't want to take that glove from Rockingham and carry it into
the Bundy crime scene, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were ordered to do that by Detective Lange, weren't
you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I was requested to do so.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you did?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever tell him that was a bad idea?

A. I told him that -- well, I made the conclusion in my mind that I would not
take the bag -- or the glove out of the bag for him. And I felt that merely
bringing the bag to the crime scene and opening it up carefully would not
compromise the scene.

Q. Now, you could have taken the Bundy glove and taken it out to the crime
scene truck and compared it there, couldn't you?

A. That's possible, yes.

Q. Now, isn't it accurate that there were quite a few police officers that you
had seen at Rockingham in the morning, 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock, when you were
there, that were also at Bundy when you got there after 10:00?

A. Actually, there were, that I recognized, less than ten.

Q. Let me ask you this: You made no effort, did you, to isolate the two crime
scenes in the sense of not having people traipsing back and forth, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You can move evidence back and forth from one crime scene
to another, even if it gets on your shoe, your clothing, your hands or anything
--

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant and calls for speculation; assumes facts not
in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: If one isn't careful, it can occur.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any effort to isolate the Rockingham scene
from the Bundy scene in terms of people going back and forth?

MR. LAMBERT: That's been asked and answered. Same objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Did he make any attempts, sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was there any attempt made that you're aware of to isolate
the two crime scenes so that people didn't come back and forth and one to the
other?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objections.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, that was not my responsibility.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) By the way, when you were at Rockingham in the afternoon,
did you see the Akita dog at Rockingham?

Do you remember seeing the dog?

A. There was a dog there, yes.

Q. And it was your understanding that was the dog they had found blood on at
Bundy?

A. I don't know which dog that was. I know there was a dog at the Rockingham
scene.

Q. Did you make any effort to isolate the Rockingham scene from blood that
might have been checked on items from the Bundy scene, like the dog?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that question?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any efforts to isolate the Rockingham scene
from things like blood from the Bundy -- coming from the Bundy scene by way of
a dog?

A. We tried to keep the dog away from the evidence or the fresh blood drops.

Q. Who was assigned to watch the dog?

A. No one was specifically -- watched.

Q. That's the only effort that was made to isolate -- to keep the dog from
possibly tracking blood from Bundy into Rockingham?

A. Well, there were fresh blood stains at Rockingham. And when the dog got near
the stains, we shooed him around.

Q. Your answer is yes, that was the only effort made to protect the Rockingham
scene from blood that might be on the dog?

A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Q. When you were at the Bundy scene in the caged-in area -- that was, again, an
area of your responsibility, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you observe what appeared to be blood drops on Nicole Brown Simpson's
back?

A. By the time I had reached Bundy, she had already been moved or she was in
the process of being moved.

Q. Now, are you in charge of collecting evidence that might be on a body?

A. The evidence that is on the body is the jurisdiction of the coroner.

Q. And you're not allowed to even touch that, are you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Usually not.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is there any kind of scientific principle that requires
that you not have anything to do with the body, but the coroner can?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Whose job is it to see that evidence that might be on a
body is preserved?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope.

THE COURT: He says it's not his place.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it your responsibility to preserve imprint evidence that
might be at a crime scene?

A. Yes.

Q. And tell us what imprint evidence is.

A. Imprint evidence can be tool marks or shoe prints, tire tracks, that sort of
thing.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as 40 previously.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recognize this picture, Mr. Fung?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That's a picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing at a glove?

A. I can't identify that as Mark Fuhrman, but it is somebody pointing at the
glove.

Q. That was an area of the crime scene that you had responsibility over
searching and preserving evidence?

A. Once I arrived there, yes.

Q. And that --

MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in on that post by the knit cap.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, do you see what appears to be parallel line
imprints on the post by the knit cap which I'm pointing to on the screen?

A. I -- what was the question again?

Q. Do you see what appears to be parallel line imprints on the post above the
blood stain on the post by the knit cap?

A. I don't see the knit cap anymore, but I do see a -- some sort of pattern on
the post.

Q. Did you make any effort at all to preserve or closely photograph that
imprint?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Other than general, overall, no.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever notice it at the time?

A. No.

Q. Let me show you what's previously been marked as 13 -- I'm sorry, 1532.

Mr. Fung, when you arrived at the crime scene at about 10:15 on the 13th, did
you observe that piece of paper in the area right between where the bodies
were?

A. I do not recall seeing that piece of paper.

Q. It wasn't there, was it?

A. I don't know if it was there or not. I just don't recall seeing it.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's zoom in on it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have some exhibit numbers, Your Honor?

MR. BLASIER: I think I gave that, 1532.

MR. PETROCELLI: Previous photo.

MR. P. BAKER: Previous photos was 40.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, 40.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, do you see what appears to be similar imprint
evidence on that piece of paper?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation; calls for speculation, calls for
conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Without benefit of a ruler or scale within that picture, I cannot
make that determination.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's one of the reasons why you collect such things as
pieces of paper that has that kind of imprint evidence on it, isn't it, so that
you can do those kinds of tests?

A. That's one of the reasons, yes.

Q. Now, you were trying to find out whether there might have been a second set
of shoe prints at Bundy other than the bloody ones, weren't you?

A. That had gone through my mind, yes.

Q. And the area on this piece of paper that I'm indicating up in this area and
along in here, those were all consistent with possible shoe imprints, aren't
they.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: You may answer if you can.

THE WITNESS: Just by looking at those two patterns, I wouldn't say they were
shoe prints.

Q. That would be?

A. In evidence.

Q. You would definitely collect that, had you seen it, wouldn't you, Mr. Fung?
It was right between the two bodies and had blood on it.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did Detective Lange ever tell you that he already looked at
that in the field and decided it had no evidentiary value?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did Detective Lange ever give you any instructions with
respect to that piece of paper?

A. I don't recall him mentioning that piece of paper to me at the crime scene,
no.

Q. Is it an appropriate procedure to make an assessment at the crime scene on
an item such as this, as to whether or not it has evidentiary value, just by
looking at it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's irrelevant as to this witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your honor, this might be a good time.

THE COURT: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll adjourn.

MR. LAMBERT: Can we approach for a second, Your Honor?

In light of today's testimony, we've all agreed that there is no need for the
402 hearing on the presumptive blood test. We can go on to evidence without
that hearing.

MR. BLASIER: I agree.

THE COURT: Okay.

8:30 tomorrow.

Again, please don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions;
and don't read, hear, or watch anything concerning this case.

JURORS: Thank you.

THE COURT: You're excused and ordered to come back tomorrow.

(At 4:30 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at
8:30 a.m.)