|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Somebody said they have something. MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor, as of Saturday, the deposition of Terry Lee was taken. And that was the witness who you may recall they had designated as a witness by the name of Karnes. We had noticed Mr. Karnes' deposition. THE COURT: Yeah, I remember. MR. BAKER: That deposition was taken on Saturday, and Mr. Lambert would not produce the notes of Mr. Karnes, saying we weren't entitled -- Mr. Lee, Terry Lee, saying we weren't entitled to those notes. Now, obviously when we had noticed the depositions of their experts, we, like they, had noticed the depositions for all the writings, everything. And because of the Court's allowing Terry Lee to be deposed late, we didn't send out any notice. Mr. Lambert wouldn't allow those notes to be turned over to us. And what I would request of the Court is that the notes be turned over to us pursuant to your order that after we have reviewed the notes, we'd be allowed to retake his deposition at their expense if there's anything in the notes that we deem that -- requires us to take his deposition. MR. LAMBERT: As Mr. Baker admitted in his argument, Your Honor, they never requested the notes, never requested anything of Terry Lee. And, in fact, what these notes were, I myself have never seen them; they were simply some notes he took when he was reviewing other documents. They're not a report that he generated; they're not his opinion; they're simply notes. And in fact, as it turned out, Mr. Blasier asked him extensive questions about the notes, and Dr. Lee read from them to him during the deposition. So he's effectively already examined him on the notes. But they didn't formally request them, and I've never seen them. I really, I suppose, don't have a problem with asking him to copy them and turn them over to both of us, if that's what they want to do. But I don't think there's any need for further examinations, since he's already examined him on the notes anyway. MR. BLASIER: I specifically asked for the notes. Mr. Lambert said he was instructing the witness not to turn them over. I did not question him on the notes. We'd like an opportunity to get the notes and reopen the deposition, if necessary. THE COURT: You're busting up our furniture. MR. LAMBERT: Our little sign is broken. (Indicating to plaintiff sign.) THE COURT: I think that better be replaced before Judge Light gets back. THE BAILIFF: I am going to. THE COURT: Okay. The Court will order that the notes be made available to the defense, and upon defense's examination, should further deposition be necessary, you may have them. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Just one other thing, Your Honor. And I apologize for those housekeeping matters, but we're in a situation where we're supposed to, as you know, and I think the Court is aware, get the witnesses three days before the witness gets to the witness stand, and have three days' worth of witnesses, so that we can prepare and they can prepare, et cetera. We're not getting anything except -- and I understand the complexity of putting on a case of this magnitude. I think it's still important that we get the witnesses in the order that they're going to put them on. Now, sometimes they have to be changed. I can understand that; but we're not getting the witnesses and we're not getting three days' worth of witnesses. And we need to be ready so that we can proceed and they can proceed in a timely fashion. And that's the Court order and I'd request that it be enforced. MR. PETROCELLI: You know, I don't think it's appropriate to bring these things up on the record. We've had ample discussions about this. I've given him all the witnesses for the week, not three days, for the whole week, in the order in which they will be presented. And we have a hearing that we requested on Thursday regarding Park Dietz on the Kelly Frye issue. And we have Dr. Spitz on Friday. We have the glove witnesses. We have the conclusion of Fung. We have Brockbank; we have Scull's deposition; we have another deposition. I gave him all the witnesses as I gave Your Honor yesterday afternoon, and I gave them to him last Friday, gave him a couple more on Saturday, and a couple more yesterday, to round out the week. And just so the record is clear, next week we're going to be doing all the blood and DNA witnesses: Robin Cotton, Gary Sims, Renee Montgomery, and Colin Yamauchi. And if we still have time left -- we only have a four-day week next week -- we will be going to William Bodziak to round out for the next two weeks, and Doug Deedrick, as well. THE COURT: Would you -- excuse me. Would you endeavor to ensure that the order in which they are going to be presented be made known to the defense. MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely. I did give them the order; okay. THE COURT: Now, what is this about Thursday? I thought yesterday you told me you weren't going to have a hearing. MR. PETROCELLI: That was a presumptive test hearing. This is on the witnesses who will testify about what they call profiling. Park Dietz is an expert witness that we want to call and we would like to have that hearing Thursday morning. THE COURT: All right. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. MR. LEONARD: Just for clarification, you said witnesses. It's not going to be -- MR. PETROCELLI: Park Dietz only. MR. GELBLUM: At this time? MR. LEONARD: Excuse me? MR. GELBLUM: At this time? MR. LEONARD: Why don't we do the hearing at the same time. MR. GELBLUM: They're very different opinions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Excuse me; what other witness? MR. GELBLUM: Donald Dutton, Your Honor Donald Dutton. THE COURT: What's he going to be offered for? MR. GELBLUM: He's offered for opinion on both post-homicide demeanor and for -- THE COURT: We'll do it at the same time. Let's not waste our time MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, Mr. Dutton -- I don't think Dr. Dutton is available on Thursday. I haven't cleared his availability. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. GELBLUM: I haven't checked his availability, Your Honor. They're different kinds of opinions; they're entirely different. THE COURT: Really? MR. GELBLUM: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I say "really" not to demean your position; but you know I did read those moving papers, and that's why I say "really," when you say they're different. You know I'm not speaking from ignorance; I read your papers. MR. GELBLUM: Well, Your Honor, the moving papers were filed by the defense and they only talk about one witness; that's why you possibly have the impression -- THE COURT: No, there's reference to both of them. Okay. Let's get on with this one. Bring the jury in, please. (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: Morning. THE COURT: We had one of those mornings, so I apologize for a late start. THE CLERK: Sir, you're still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Dennis Fung, D-E-N-N-I-S, F-U-N-G. DENNIS FUNG, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment of Monday, November 4, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Morning, Mr. Fung. Now, Mr. Fung, what time was it that you arrived at Bundy? A. Referring to my notes, I arrived at Bundy at approximately 10:15 in the morning. Q. Now, would you agree it was your responsibility to completely document, collect, and receive the physical evidence at Bundy? A. It was my responsibility to document and collect the evidence that I collected at Bundy. Q. Was there anybody else collecting evidence at Bundy? A. No. Myself and Ms. Mazzola were the ones who were collecting the items of evidence away from the body. Q. Who was in charge of collecting items of evidence near the body? A. Near the bodies would have been our responsibility, also. Q. So you had the responsibility of collecting all the evidence at the Bundy crime scene, correct? A. Well, the evidence on the body and the body itself are the jurisdiction of the coroner. Q. Okay. It is correct, crime scene processing procedure, is it not, to fully process, identify, photograph, document each piece of evidence before it's collected? Correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that? Q. It is correct evidence collection procedure, to document each item of evidence before it is moved or collected? Correct? A. That's the best -- when it's possible, that's the best way to do it, yes. Q. An the goal is to try and preserve the crime scene as close as possible to the way it was at the time of the crime, correct? A. As things are changed, if they're documented, it would be permissible to move things. I mean, if you have to move things and you document that they are moved, then you -- it's permissible? MR. BLASIER: I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive. THE COURT: Denied. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Don't you try to keep the crime scene the same way it was when you -- it was found, Mr. Fung, so you can document everything in its original position? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant and beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll allow it, but start moving; otherwise, I'm going to sustain it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you understand the question, Mr. Fung? A. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Q. Let me ask it this way: There was a substantial amount of evidence in the immediate vicinity of the bodies, was there not? A. Yes, there was. Q. When you got there at 10:00 or 10:15 in the morning, the coroner's office was already there, in the process of moving the bodies? A. Yes, they were. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Relevance, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does that concern you, that the bodies were being moved before you had a chance to document the evidence around the bodies? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Did you discuss with Detective Lange that that was a bad practice, to move the bodies before you had a chance to document the crime scene? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, let me show you what's been previously marked as 101. Why don't you tell me what that is, Mr. Fung. A. That is a photograph depicting a glove and a card next to it with the number 102. Q. And that is a card that you or Andrea Mazzola put next to the glove prior to collecting it, correct? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as 40. (Referring to Exhibit 40.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You recognize the picture of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? A. I do recognize that as the glove being in the relatively same position. Q. Well, "relatively?" It's in a different position, isn't it. Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for conclusion; lack of foundation. THE COURT: You may examine, see whether or not it's in the same or different position. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The position has been altered, hasn't it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for conclusion; lacks foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You never saw the glove when it was in the first position in Exhibit 40, did you? A. I only saw the glove in the position in photo -- I guess it's Exhibit 101. Q. And were you able to document at all at the scene how that glove got moved? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I was not aware that it was moved. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. So you have no way of knowing whether it was picked up, taken someplace, and placed back in that position, do you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you what's been marked as People's 1 -- I'm sorry -- Exhibit 103. That's a picture of the envelope with the tag 104 next to it that was placed there by you or Andrea Mazzola just prior to collection, correct? A. That is correct. Q. Let me show you 90. That's the envelope in a different position, isn't it, Mr. Fung? A. It appears to be in a different position. Q. You can tell because of the grout line that the envelope has been altered, hasn't it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence; calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: Did you make any inquiries at the scene about whether you were collecting evidence -- about whether the scene had been altered? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you familiar with a term, "a close-in crime scene?" A. I've heard it during the criminal trial, but I had never heard of that term before that. Q. You familiar with a technique of collecting evidence in a close-in crime scene, where you do not disturb the bodies before you have a chance to document the evidence around the bodies? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you did what's called a stride analysis, pertaining to the Bundy drops, did you not? A. Pertaining to the shoe prints, yes. Q. The shoe prints. And that's a way of measuring the distance between the shoe prints to determine whether somebody -- the person who left the shoe prints is running or walking, correct? A. Roughly, yes. Q. And you determined that whoever left those shoe prints was not running, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to the Bundy drops and each of those swatches that you use for a drop, it is just a small piece of cotton; it is not a cloth? A. They vary in size, but they're probably usually smaller than the size of your fingernail. Q. And they don't have any kind of marking on them that allows to you distinguish one from the other, do they? A. No. Q. Once you use them to collect a blood stain, you can't tell one from any other one, can you? A. No. That's why we take great care in labeling each item of evidence as we go along. Q. You take great care at labeling each item of evidence so that you can track it later? A. What do you mean "track?" Q. To determine whether it's been tampered with or not later. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) To determine whether it's been altered later? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: The evidence is kept in a secure location and it's kept in a locked facility. So I wouldn't -- there's never been any type of altering that I'm aware of, so I don't count the swatches, no. Q. Mr. Fung, you don't count the swatches, the number of swatches that you take per drop, do you? A. I do not. Q. You do not diagram them so that you can recognize them at some later time, to make sure what's in the bindle later is what you put into it originally, do you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; assumes facts not in evidence; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You don't do that either, do you? A. No. Q. You don't photograph them, do you? A. No. Q. Now, the swatches that you made -- incidentally, did you try to collect all of the blood in each of the drops at Bundy? A. I collected a representative sample from the drops and tried to collect as much as -- as possible. Q. My question is, did you collect all of the blood from the drops at Bundy? A. Not completely, no. Q. How did you determine when to stop? A. When several cloth swatches were dampened -- or reddened by the stain, then, and it appeared that by putting more swatches on the stain, nothing would come up, or very little would come up, we stopped. Q. So, you swatch it until you can no longer get any more blood off the surface? A. But there's still always going to be residual. Q. You try to get up as much as is there, correct? A. Well, at the Bundy scene, yeah. Q. That's because you can't tell how much you might need for DNA testing, correct, just by looking at it? A. Just by looking at it, no. Q. Now, the swatches that -- incidentally, you indicated that you realized it was a mistake when you were -- when you were at Rockingham, to have Andrea Mazzola in charge of processing the crime scene, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you part of 212 -- actually, let me show you all of 212 now. MR. PETROCELLI: Is 212 all one exhibit? MR. BLASIER: Intended. MR. PETROCELLI: What do you mean, intended? Is it on the joint trial statement as one exhibit? MR. BLASIER: We'll give it another number. MR. PETROCELLI: This is not 21 on the joint trial statement. MR. PETROCELLI: We'll give it a new number. MR. BLASIER: 2135. MR. PETROCELLI: This is a collection of documents. Let me show you 2135, Mr. Fung. Are those your original crime-scene notes from the work you did at Rockingham at 7 o'clock -- starting at 7:15 in the morning? (The instrument herein referred to as Dennis Fung's original Rockingham crime-scene notes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2135.) (Witness reviews documents.) THE WITNESS: This appears to be some of them, not all of them. Q. Those are -- all the documents that are contained in that packet, however, are from the work that you did at Rockingham, correct? A. Yes, but it's not complete. Q. Now, who made out these documents? A. Those were primarily filled out by criminalist Mazzola. Q. And this is the document -- the front page of this document is the one that lists Mazzola as the officer in charge, correct? A. Yes. Q. Is it correct procedure to write these notes in pencil? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) These are all written in pencil, are they not. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes, they are. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, at some point you made the decision that Andrea Mazzola should not be the officer in charge, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Asked and answered yesterday. THE COURT: Sustained. That was yesterday. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) All right. Did you make any efforts to correct the paperwork to show that she was not the officer in charge? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, of the blood, how many blood stains did you collect from Bundy? A. On what date? Q. On the morning of the 13th. (Witness reviews document in notebook.) A. Let me recount. Fourteen. Q. How many of those were actually collected, swatched by Andrea Mazzola? A. I don't recall the exact number. Q. Most of them, correct? A. Most of them, probably, yes. Q. And how many stains did you collect at Rockingham on the 13th? A. Inside and outside? Q. Yes. (Witness reviews document.) A. I believe eight. Q. How many of those did she collect, as opposed to you? A. Again, I don't know the exact number, but she primarily did most of the swatching. Q. And the crime-scene notes at Rockingham, she wrote these, as well? A. Primarily, yes. Q. Did you, at any point in time when you changed her responsibilities as not being the officer in charge, did you actually change anything that she was assigned to do? A. Well, as the officer in charge, she would have decided the priority of evidence on how to go ahead and process the scene. And when I took charge, then I took that role. Q. But you had her do all the work, didn't you, most of it? A. Well, not most of it, but I had her doing a lot of the active part, yeah. Q. You were doing the mental part? A. Well, I was -- I was also doing a lot of physical work, also, not just mental. Q. Let me show you part of your checklist from Rockingham. And this is a little difficult to see because it's in pencil. MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on -- okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This contains a list of items collected at Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. And there's a column on this form where you indicate who it was collected by, correct? A. Yes, there is. Q. You left that completely blank, didn't you? A. Because we were working as a team, I did not feel that it was necessary to fill that in at the time. Q. All right. It was left blank on the Bundy crime-scene notes, as well? A. For the same reason, yes. Q. Now, that form is a form that's used by your department at crime scenes to process evidence, isn't it? A. It is a -- it is a form, yes. Q. And the purpose of filling out this form is to completely and accurately document who does what at the crime scene; that's one of the purposes, is it not? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: My understanding of this form is to help the criminalist document a scene as information becomes appropriate to fill in, as it becomes relevant. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And who an item was collected by, is not relevant information, in your view? A. Not when you're working as a team. If we had broken up into different teams or we had separated our tasks, then I would have thought it more appropriate to fill that column in. But we -- because we were working as a team, that was not an issue to me. Q. Now, at some later time, when you tried to reconstruct who had done what, it became an issue? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you did take several months after processing the crime scene, didn't you. MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I didn't recall exactly when we did it, but after it had become an issue in one of the hearings, then we went back to try to reconstruct who did exactly what. Q. Now, when these crime-scene checklists are done at a crime scene, what's the process that you do after they're done? Does somebody look at them to approve them? A. In general, yes, somebody does review them. Q. Who? A. That would be the criminalist 3 in charge of the field unit or another supervisor. Q. And who would it have been in this case? A. Let's see. That would have been Ron Raquel or Jo Gaurin. Q. Now, if Andrea Mazzola filled out this crime-scene checklist, it would be your responsibility, as her supervisor -- THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, it wasn't filled out. It wasn't checked out. You may examine as to who found what, if that's where you're going. But the rest of it, the procedures, I'm going to find to be irrelevant. You may ask what was found by whom on this case, if that is what you want to find out. If you don't want to find out, then move on to another area. MR. BLASIER: Yes, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you review these forms for correctness? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I reviewed them for accuracy, yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you one page of the field notes before I put on the Elmo. I want you to tell me what that particular page is. A. This is a document from the crime-scene checklist that has different tests and observations that were made during the -- during the search. Q. That's where, from Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. There's writing on the back of that, isn't there? A. Yes, there is. Q. And it's the back of this page that -- MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. For the record, what is that exhibit? MR. BLASIER: This is the new exhibit, 2135. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It's the back of this document that lists O.J. Simpson's blood vial as number 18; isn't that correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Asked and answered yesterday. THE COURT: Sustained. We went through this exhibit yesterday. MR. BLASIER: I don't think I went through this with him. THE COURT: Yes, you did. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, there are erasures on this form, are there not? A. Yes, there are. Q. At some point, you went back to try and change this, didn't you? A. I was going to change it and didn't know whether I'd be accused of altering documents or not, so I erased. MR. BLASIER: Can we zoom in on the erasure. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, that case that you tried to change that -- MR. BLASIER: Zoom out a little bit. Let me turn it this way so we can read it a little bit better. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That says 75, 94 with your initials doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. You tried to change that document in July, didn't you? A. Well, I was correcting -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I was correcting what I saw as inconsistencies in the recording of the evidence. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And the reason that number had to be changed from 18 to 17 is because if it was item 18, it would indicate it was collected after the tennis shoes, which weren't collected until the morning of the 14th; isn't that correct? MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, irrelevant. THE COURT: I think you asked that yesterday. MR. BLASIER: Let me show you another document from 2135. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell us what that particular sheet is. A. This is an evidence collection report. It's a sheet from the crime-scene checklist from Rockingham. Q. And whose handwriting is on that form? A. Parts of it is Ms. Mazzola's and part of it is mine. Q. Now, Mr. Fung, that indicates -- the top item as 18 and the next item as 17, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Would you agree that there is -- MR. BLASIER: Zoom in on 18. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) -- that there is originally a different -- somebody started a different number there? A. Yes. Q. When was that change made? Do you know? A. I don't know the exact date of when that was changed. Q. Mr. Fung, we talked a little bit about the change of position of the gloves. Are the pictures with the two different positions, there was actually a third position that that glove was in before it was collected; isn't that correct? A. I'm not aware of a third position. Q. There's a position of a glove on the blanket that had been used to cover Nicole Brown Simpson's body, correct? A. I'm not aware of that. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'd like to play video 911, please. Could you look at this video, Mr. Fung. MR. LAMBERT: Objection to the lack of foundation for the video. MR. BLASIER: Well, I'll ask him about it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this appear to be the Bundy scene? A. I can't -- looks like scrambled cable. MR. BLASIER: Can you play a little bit? MR. P. BAKER: Yeah. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You see this, Mr. Fung? (Indicating to video.) A. That's the -- Q. That's the glove, isn't it, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation; irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I'd have to see that more clearly. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You've seen this video a number of times, haven't you, Mr. Fung? A. (No verbal response.) Q. That's you putting a card down by it, isn't it, Mr. Fung? A. Well, I am putting a card in that area, yes. Q. That glove is on the tile there, isn't it, Mr. Fung? A. I can't determine that. Q. Do you know how it got there? A. No, I don't. Q. Appears to be on the blanket there, doesn't it, Mr. Fung? A. There appears to be a dark area there. I can't determine what that object is, though. THE COURT: The jury -- at this point, Mr. Blasier, the Court is going to admonish the jury that the evidence has not established that that is a glove at this point. So you may not consider that a glove until somebody establishes that it is a glove, okay? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, Mr. Fung, can you tell us what it is, other than the glove? A. I have no idea. THE COURT: That doesn't make it a glove, either, ladies and gentlemen. So I'll sustain a foundation objection because there's no foundation. MR. BLASIER: Your honor, the video speaks for itself. THE COURT: It doesn't establish that's a glove, Mr. Blasier. This witness can't identify it, so you have a foundation problem. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, the LAPD doesn't take videos of crime scenes to document where things are, do they? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. This is all video that was taken by media outside of the area, correct? A. From my understanding, yes. Q. Now, this video does show the blanket that was left on the ground after Nicole Brown Simpson's body was moved, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation; calls for speculation; conclusion. THE COURT: You may answer, if you know. THE WITNESS: When I arrived at the scene, the blanket was on the ground. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, this video is a video of the Bundy scene while you were there, correct? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Could we see the part where the card is put down, please. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Mr. Fung, that is you putting down a card by an item on the tile, correct, or what appears to be on the tile? A. Somewhere near the edge of the tile, yes. Q. Other than the envelope -- in fact, the envelope was on dirt, as well. Was there any piece of evidence that you recovered from the tiled area, as indicated by your notes? A. There was an area an area -- let's see. There was a sticker that was collected on the tile and a blood stain that was checked on the tile itself. Q. Which stain was checked on the tile? A. Photo I.D. 107, which was by the base of the stairs. Q. All right. MR. BLASIER: Can we see where the card's being put down again, please. (Video is played.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The card you put down is not by the base of the stairs, is it, Mr. Fung? A. No, it's not. Q. So that's not 107, is it? A. No, it's not. Q. Where was the label found? A. The label was found in the center of the walkway area. Q. Okay. The card you're putting down here is right on the other side of this object, right by the tile, is it not? A. That's correct. Q. The label was over in a different area, wasn't it, Mr. Fung? A. Yes, it was. Q. Tell me, can you tell from your notes what item you were collecting with that card? A. I could make a guess. I don't know exactly what item I was labeling at that point in time. Q. Now, there was -- the envelope was recovered from the dirt area. And who actually collected that item? A. The envelope was collected by Ms. Mazzola. Q. And isn't it correct that the envelope was picked up by her and handed to you, with your bare hands? A. That's incorrect. MR. BLASIER: Could we see video 915, please. (Video 915 being played.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Please look at this video, Mr. Fung, and tell us if this is a video of you and Andrea Mazzola at the crime scene, the Bundy scene. Do you recognize it, Mr. Fung? A. Somewhat. MR. BLASIER: Now, just hold it here for a second. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This person here is from the coroner's office, correct? A. Yes. Q. As well as this person, correct? A. I don't recognize his face. Q. Okay. This is the person from the coroner's office that helped move the bodies, correct? A. If she was the coroner's representative, yes. Q. All right. Let's go ahead and play this. I want you to watch behind her and tell us, wasn't that you picking up the envelope after it was handed to you by Andrea Mazzola? A. No, it was not. I have reviewed the tape before, and it's too bad that this is in black and white right now. If it was in color, you'd be able to see that that is a manila envelope, and the envelope that is the item of evidence is actually white. Q. So you have a better video of this? A. I remember from reviewing the tapes during the criminal trial, that it was a manila envelope; and the envelope -- this is a manila envelope in the video, and the item of evidence is a white envelope with red stains on it. Q. So the white envelope was put into a manila envelope? A. No, it was not. Q. You testified at the criminal trial that that was a tablet, didn't you? A. I -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts in not in evidence. If he has a reference in the criminal transcript, he better show it to him. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I testified that that's what it could have been. Q. You didn't testify that it was a manila envelope, did you? A. I didn't at that time, no. Q. Incidentally, did you preserve the white envelope for possible fingerprints? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope; irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. If it is a recovered piece of evidence, you may inquire about it. THE WITNESS: The envelope was placed in a paper bag, I believe. So if prints were deemed applicable to that item of evidence by whoever was making that determination, then it could have been performed. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you 90, which is another picture of the envelope. Let's back out, first of all. Does that appear to be a picture of the envelope? A. A blurry picture at this point. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: Can we focus that a little bit? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that appears to be the envelope in which position, the first one or the second one? A. I don't remember. Q. That corresponds to Exhibit 90, appears to be in the first position, correct? A. Yes, Exhibit 90. Q. Now, one of the things that's important about collecting evidence such as this is, if there's any debris on it, it's important to try and preserve that, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, let me show you 103, the envelope, in the second position. There is much less debris on the envelope in the second position where you collected it than in the first position, isn't there? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: There does appear to be different -- yes, it's different. MR. BLASIER: Okay. Can you zoom in on the right -- upper right corner of the envelope, please. I don't know if we can see it very well. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, do you see the parallel line imprints on the envelope on the upper right-hand corner? You can actually see it a little better on here. A. I do see a pattern there. Q. That appears to be similar to the pattern that was on the piece of paper we looked at yesterday, doesn't it. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; calls for conclusion; lack of foundation. MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Without benefit for a measuring device, I can't make that determination. MR. BLASIER: Let me switch gears here for a second. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, on July 3, you went back to Bundy to collect the stains on the back gate, correct? A. July 3, yes. Q. And let me show you a picture that has previously been marked as 2100. Right there. Sergeant Rossi circled where I have my finger on this picture as being blood. And I think he said it was absolutely blood. That's not blood, is it, Mr. Fung? A. I can't tell from the picture. Q. Did you collect a spot at that location? A. I collected a spot in that -- near that location, yes. Q. At that location? A. At this point in time, I can't determine whether -- because of the picture, whether that was the stain or that was the stain. (Indicating.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You collected everything that you saw there that looked like a blood stain, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And you collected one drop in the area of that card 116, correct? A. From the best of my recollection, yes. Q. Let me show you 2090 -- 2098. This is a picture where Officer Terrazas has circled what he said was absolutely blood. That's not blood, either, is it, Mr. Fung? A. Again, I cannot determine from that picture on the video screen which one of those is the actual stain. Q. Did you collect all the blood from the back gate that you saw on the 3rd? A. Not all of this -- of it for -- I collected a representative sample. I collected as much of it as I could. Q. Do you have any record of any stain being on the mesh on the inside above 116? A. There was an area above that, that was item 117, that I collected. Q. That was on the other side of the gate, wasn't it, Mr. Fung? A. Yes, it was. Q. Did you see any evidence of blood on the mesh right above 116? A. There was other blood present on the gate; however, I collected the best stains there. Q. There wasn't anything above the card on 116 that you observed, was there, Mr. Fung? A. I didn't make note of it, but I know there was additional -- there was blood that I did not collect on the gate at that time. Q. And the reason you went out there was supposedly because blood had been left there from June 13, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: 2090 is not that picture? MR. BLASIER: 2098. THE CLERK: Thank you. Q. That was the purpose you went out there on July 3; supposedly you missed blood on the 13th, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. MR. BLASIER: Are you saying, Mr. Fung, that you left more blood on the back gate after July 3? A. There was more blood on the back gate. I collected a representative sample. MR. BLASIER: I need to get another board, Your Honor. Do we have a number on this one? MR. P. BAKER: 168. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, that appears to be pictures of the Bronco that you processed on June 14, correct? A. That's correct. Q. By the way, one of those stains that you collected on the 14th is stain 29, is it not? MR. P. BAKER: That's 211, not 1168. THE COURT: What is this? MR. P. BAKER: 211. THE WITNESS: What is the number you were asking about? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 29. A. Yes. Q. That was a blood stain, or apparent blood stain on the steering wheel of the Bronco, was it not? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you observed stains 30 and 31, you observed them clearly on the 14th of June, correct? A. 30 and 31? Q. On the console. A. Yes. Q. They were easy to see, weren't they, A. They weren't real easy to see; I had to use a flashlight and to detect them. Q. On June 14? A. Yes. Q. During daylight, you had to use a flashlight? A. Yes. Well, the Bronco was in the print shed. Q. Okay. Now, did you make an effort to collect all of 30 and 31? A. I collected a representative sample from 30 and 31. Q. Did you collect all of it, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered. MR. BLASIER: He didn't answer the question. THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: No, I did not. Q. Did you make any notation in any report anywhere that you had not collected all of the blood from the console on June 14? A. No notation of that was made. Q. Did you tell anyone, after the 14th, when you came back from processing the Bronco, that there was still more blood on the console that you didn't collect? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How did you determine how much of the stain to collect, Mr. Fung? A. After collecting a swatch that was darkened, I stopped collecting at that point. Q. Why? A. Because I did not see more stain coming up on that on that swatch. It was a difficult area to collect or trans -- transfer the stain on, so I collected one swatch's worth and stopped. Q. Why was it difficult? A. It's, -- it appeared to. It didn't come off easily. Q. It didn't come off easily; that's why you didn't collect all of it? A. I collected one swatch's worth, and it was dark, so I determined that was enough for -- Q. For what? A. For me to collect. Q. Enough for testing? A. From that light of stain, yes. Q. So you felt that what you collected was sufficient for DNA testing? A. Not for DNA testing. I wasn't making that determination at that time. Q. So you weren't thinking about the possibility of DNA testing being done on what you collected from the console? A. That's correct. Q. And why not? A. It was such a light stain that I was thinking mostly about conventional serology for that -- for that stain. Q. Mr. Fung, isn't it correct laboratory procedure to try and collect as much of a stain as possible so that you can do DNA testing? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recall testifying at the criminal trial, page 22251, line 10, that you didn't think that stain was a good candidate for DNA tests? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you think that was a good candidate for DNA analysis, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, are you aware of any photograph after June 14, prior to August 26, that shows the blood on the console in the position of 305 on the bottom? A. Can you give those dates again? Q. From June 14, when you collected part of it, until August 26, when it was searched by Michele Kestler -- A. Additional photographs taken of that area? Q. That shows stain 305 or 304, the way it appears here. A. I'm not aware of any additional photographs that were taken between that time. Q. Now, did you take any -- have any photographs taken of the Bronco after you were done, to show what you had left there? A. No. Q. Though this is Exhibit 239, can you tell us what this is, Mr. Fung, what it appears to be? A. That appears to be a shot of the Bronco with the door open on the left side. Q. And that's you holding a flashlight there, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And that was taken on what day? A. June 14. Q. Now, I think you said yesterday that you when you processed -- when you looked at the Bronco at the Rockingham location, you didn't see any blood down around the door sill? A. Didn't notice any. Q. And you looked at the Bronco for possible blood on the outside of it, didn't you? A. At that time, I was directed mostly to that handle area. Q. So you only looked at the little handle area because that's all you were directed to? A. There's other areas that needed attention at that time, and I knew the Bronco was going to be impounded, so I didn't spend much time with it. Q. Let me show you 108. This is a picture of the Bronco, with you standing at -- pointing at the spot -- pointing at the door handle -- the spot on the door handle, correct? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you a little clearer -- MR. PETROCELLI: The Exhibit number? MR. BLASIER: 108. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There's no indication of any blood on the Bronco around the door sill area, is there? A. I wouldn't expect to see that, find an area of blood to be depicted in this photograph. Q. You don't see any blood in that photograph, do you, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: The answer may remain. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That became an issue, whether there was any blood visible outside the Bronco door at the time of the preliminary hearing, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you sent out back to the Bronco during the preliminary hearing by Marcia Clark to look to see whether there was any blood visible from the outside of the Bronco, down around the sill area, that you could see with the door closed? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you 1528. Now, Mr. Fung, do you recall looking at that photograph during the criminal trial and making those circles? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope. THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that was a picture -- that was you circling the blood stains that you had located in the door sill area during the preliminary hearing, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I believe I was circling areas that I believe the stains were at, even though it was a poor picture and I was locating the -- where the items of blood should have been. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. The original picture is better than this laser copy, is it not? You can't actually see the spots, can you? A. I don't think I could even see it at the criminal trial. But later, a better photograph was found, and it was relatively in the same locations. Q. Okay. And you agree that these two circles, the one on the top and the one at the far right, you cannot see that area with the door of the Bronco closed? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for conclusion; irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did a presumptive test on some blood on the Bronco in that area during the preliminary hearing, did you not? A. Before -- Well, yeah, I guess it was during. Q. You were sent out there by Marcia Clark, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I was, yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you never wrote a report about any of that work that you did on that day, did you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I did. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When? A. I wrote it on October 6, 1994. Q. And you did that on what date? You did the actual testing on what day? A. July 6, 1994. MR. LEONARD: May I assist Mr. Blasier? THE COURT: Are we getting into a different area? MR. LEONARD: We are. THE COURT: All right. Take a ten-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions. (Recess taken at 10:58 a.m.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: You may resume. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung -- what number is this, Phil? MR. P. BAKER: I'm looking right now. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, can you see the board up there entitled "Rockingham Biological Evidence?" A. Yes. Q. Now, when you went back to Rockingham, the second time about what time did you get there. A. We arrived back at Rockingham at approximatly 3:30. Q. And at that time, you were responsible for collecting anything of evidentiary value inside the house, correct? A. I was there to collect evidence inside the residence within the parameters of the search warrant. Q. Okay. You're there to collect any physical evidence, anything of evidentiary value that you could find, right? A. Within the parameters of the search warrant. MR. BLASIER: And can we look at -- the board is 208, Your Honor. And I put on the Elmo what's been previously marked as 924 and 925. Maybe we can show those together. These are pictures that show the inside of Mr. Simpson's house with a stairway that goes up to the upstairs bedroom and then the one on the right is the hallway going back to the bedroom. Do you recognize that? (The instrument herein referred to as Picture of stairs at Rockingham was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 924.) (The instrument herein referred to as Picture of Rockingham Hallway was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 925.) THE WITNESS: Not particularly, no. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You don't? A. Not really. Q. Do you remember it looking about like that? A. Something, something like that. Q. Did you conduct a careful examination of the entire area from the bottom of the stairs back into the bedroom? A. I did look, yes. Q. And the carpeting that's on the stairway, and it goes back in the hallway is relatively plush; is it not? A. Relatively, yes. Q. And it's much more plush than the carpeting that's in the Bronco; isn't it? A. I don't remember the relative plushness. (Laughter.) Q. Was -- there was no evidence of bloody shoe print drops of any form whatsoever on the stairway going upstairs, correct? A. Between which areas? Q. The foyer and the upstairs hall. A. No. Q. That's correct; is it not, there was no evidence of any blood in that area? A. I didn't detect any. Q. Nothing on the bannisters? A. None detected. Q. Nothing in the hallway at all going back to the master bedroom, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Nothing on the walls, correct? A. Correct. Q. Nothing on the switch plates? A. Correct. Q. Nothing on the door knobs? A. None detected. Q. Now, when you got in the master bedroom, there was no indication of any blood anywhere on the floor, correct? A. I did not see any. Q. On the bedding, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you looked in the bathroom as well, did you not? A. In the master bathroom, yes. Q. Did you look in the hamper there? A. I did not personally look in the hamper. However, there were detectives who had gone through that clothing. Q. And there was -- there was nothing of any evidentiary value in the hamper, correct? A. They did not direct my attention to any of that, no. Q. There were no bloody towels, no bloody clothes, anything like that? A. We did not find any. Q. Now, the socks that are on the floor, you checked items of evidence starting on the foyer area and going upstairs, correct? A. Correct. Q. And we can tell from the number 12 that's the item number that you assigned to the drop or drops in the foyer area, correct? A. Yes. Q. And after you processed number 12, you came upstairs and processed number 13, which is the socks? A. I labeled 13. Q. Labeled, okay. And 14 is a spot on the bathroom floor, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, what do your records show in terms of the time that you processed number 12? A. Number 12 has the time of -- and I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30 in the afternoon. Q. You have that in your notes? A. Well, on the evidence collection sheet, item number 12. Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Item number 12, 4:30, correct? A. Correct. Q. And item number 14 was at what time? A. Item 14 was at 4:40. Q. And you collected the -- or at least labeled the socks between 12 and 14, correct? A. Yes. Q. What time did you physically collect the socks? A. The socks were collected within -- somewhere within that timeframe there. Q. And those socks appear to be completely out of place in that room, didn't they? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was there any other clothing on the floor in that room at all? A. Not on the floor, no. Q. Now, on the bed area, there's what appears to be some straps that appear to come from luggage; is that correct? A. Well, there were some straps there. I wasn't sure if they were from luggage or whether they were suspenders or anything like that. I looked at them and I didn't see them as particularly interesting for collection. Q. Okay. And we have up on the television screen, exhibit 926. Do you recognize that? A. Yes. (The instrument herein referred to as Evidence collection Sheet Items 1-16 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 926.) Q. That is your check list for the items that you collected at Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. And if we can zoom in on 13 down there, that's the socks, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, one of the purposes of these documents is to record the precise location of items of evidentiary value, correct? A. Yes. Q. Where -- what was the location of the socks according to that document? A. According to this document, eight feet north of the south wall and four feet west of the east wall. Q. I have a new exhibit. Could I have a number, please? THE CLERK: 2136. MR. BLASIER: 2136. (The instrument herein referred to as Mr. Fung's notation; Re: socks from Rockingham scene was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2136.) (Plaintiff counsel review document handed to them by Mr. Blasier.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you first, in person, 2136. You recognize that, don't you? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. That is a notation with the socks being at four feet north of the south wall, and eight feet west of the east wall. Q. That's a document that has the socks at a different location from the document that's on the television screen? A. Well, the numbers are transposed. Q. Different locations, aren't they, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered. THE COURT: I don't think he answered that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) They're at different locations on these two documents, aren't they, Mr.'Fung? A. The numbers are transposed. So if you were to go literally from those notes, yeah, they would be in different position. Q. Who wrote the document that's on the television screen which is 926? A. That would be ciminalist Mazzola. Q. And that was done at your direction, correct? A. Yes. Q. And who wrote 2176? A. That is also ciminalist Mazzola's handwriting. Q. That was done at your direction as well, correct? A. Correct. Their -- Q. There's no question, Mr.'Fung. A. Sorry. Q. Let me show you page 4 of exhibit 1412. And ask you if you recognize this. A. Yes. Q. And what is it? A. That is the property report that I prepared after going over the notes. Q. And this records, again, the locations of items that you took into evidence, correct? A. Yes. Q. What is the location for item number 14? A. 14? Q. Yes. A. That would be six feet, 11 -- excuse me. Six feet south of the north wall, four feet west of the east wall. Q. Let me show you 2136 again. Tell me what the location is there for item 14? Zoom in. It's under line 9, correct? A. If you could move it over. Q. Sure. (Referring to TV screen.) A. That says, I believe, six feet 11 south of the north wall and 8 feet -- I can't make that out. Q. Zoom in, please. (Indicating to TV screen.) A. Eight feet eight west of the east wall. Q. Tell me how it's described in 1412. A. In this document it's six feet south. Six feet, 11 inches south of the north wall and four feet west of the east wall. Q. That's a completely different location than is seen on the document on the TV screen? A. Yes, it is. Q. Mr. Fung, was the level of care that was used in preparing these documents the same level of care that you used in preparing evidence in this case. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, do you recall -- you can take that down, Phil -- When you collected or prior to the time that you collected the socks from the bedroom floor, seeing a videographer from LAPD? A. I was aware that a video crew was there, Q. And the video crew was not there to preserve the crime scene at all. It was there to make certain that if anything was broken during the course of the search warrant, LAPD didn't have to pay for it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. MR. BLASIER: Let's rephrase it. The videotape person was there for insurance purposes on behalf of LAPD, was he not? MR. LAMBERT: Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) If you know. Do you know why he was there? A. He was there for liability purposes. Q. Okay. He wasn't there to help you document the crime scene, was he? A. No. Q. Now, Mr. Fung, what time did you see him? Did you see him in the bedroom? A. I don't recall where exactly I saw him. I do know that his presence was -- I was aware of his presence, though. I didn't keep track of him. Q. Were you aware of his presence in that room at 4:14 in the afternoon? A. Again, I didn't keep track of him. Q. There were no socks on the floor at 4:14 in the afternoon, were there? A. It may have been collected earlier at 4:14. I, again, those times are relative. They could go either way 10, 15 minutes. Q. Are you saying now you might have collected the socks before you collected the blood in the foyer? A. Probably not, no. Q. And you collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, didn't you? A. At around that time, yes. Q. You couldn't have collected the socks earlier than 4:14, could you? A. Probably not, no. Q. Now, when you collected, those are two different items, aren't they? Two socks, correct? A. Yes. Q. When you checked them, you put them in the same bag, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Is it an acceptable procedure to put two items of evidence in the same bag? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you run out of bags, Mr.'Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I did not. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was your choice to -- it was your choice to put them in the same bag? A. Yes. Q. Now, is it correct to say that you did not observe any blood on those socks whatsoever when you collected them? A. I did not look for blood on the sock at that point. I collected them so that they could be analyzed for blood at a later time. Q. When you were -- you were looking for items that might have blood on them, weren't you, Mr. Fung? A. I was. Q. And you looked at the socks and you didn't see any blood, did you? A. I collected them so that they could be analyzed for blood later. Q. So you didn't look at them at the scene? A. Not with the level of care needed to be able to detect blood on navy blue socks, no. Q. Did you look at them to see if there was any blood on them, Mr. Fung? A. I didn't see any blood on them when I looked at them. MR. BLASIER: Move to strike as nonresponsive. So you did look at them -- THE WITNESS: I did look at the socks. MR. BLASIER: -- For blood and didn't see any blood? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: I did not see blood on the socks. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Now, there was also, you didn't see any evidence of a -- of a lot of dirt on the socks either, did you? A. Again, I did not look at the socks with the -- with a microscope or a magnifying glass, so I did not see any soil on the socks. Q. When you looked at them, when you were looking for whatever you were looking at, there wasn't any obvious dirt on there, correct? A. Correct. Q. There was no line of dirt in an area where a shoe might meet with a sock either, was there? A. No. Q. And there was no dirt on the -- on the carpeting underneath the socks, correct? A. I did not notice any. Q. And there was no apparent blood stain on the carpeting under the socks, was there? A. I didn't notice any. Q. Now, I want to ask you some questions about Mr. Simpson's reference blood. At what time did you receive that? A. That was received at 5:20 on June 13. Q. And that was when Detective Vannatter brought it from the police department downtown, out to Rockingham, correct? A. I did receive the blood vial in the foyer at Rockingham. Q. From Detective Vannatter who brought it from downtown, you understood that, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Did anyone call you in advance to say that they wanted to bring you the blood vial out to the crime scene? A. No. Q. That's a horrible thing to do; isn't it, Mr.'Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that a proper technique to bring reference blood back to a crime scene? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, you received this -- how was it contained when you received it? A. The vial was within a gray analyzed evidence envelope. Q. Was it sealed? A. I don't believe it was. Q. Did you take the blood vial out of the envelope? A. Not sure if I did. I did check to see if it was intact. Q. Did you take -- do you know whether you took it out of the envelope? A. I don't recall if I did or not. Q. There was a photographer named Wilson standing right about there; wasn't there? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that? Where was Andrea Mazzola while you were doing that? A. I don't know where she was at that point in time. I don't recall. Q. Now, you received the reference vial in the area of the foyer, in the same area as where these blood drops were found, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you become aware at some later time there were more blood drops found in that foyer area? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I'm aware that there were smaller dots that were present that I did not collect of those larger -- of that larger area there. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But you had seen them on the 13th when you collected 12? A. I didn't take notes of them. Q. If you didn't see -- you didn't see them? A. I may have saw them but I didn't collect the smaller dots. I didn't because there were larger areas of blood there. I didn't look for -- look at or notice the smaller ones. Q. Does -- was Mr. Simpson's vial opened in that foyer area? A. No, it was not. Q. After you got it, what did you do with it? A. I initialed the envelope and noted the time that it was relinquished into my custody. Q. What did you do with it then, Mr. Fung? A. With the envelope? Q. Yeah. A. Well, from reconstruction in videotapes, I put it in a garbage bag, a plastic garbage bag and gave it to Ms. Mazzola. Q. Where did you get the garbage bag from? A. I asked one of the detectives to find a bag or something for me to bring out the evidence in 'cause I didn't want the media to see what I was bringing out. Q. You didn't want the media to see you were bringing evidence out of the house? A. What the evidence was. Q. It was in an envelope by that point, wasn't it? A. Sure. Q. Why didn't you want the media to see you bringing an envelope out of Mr. Simpson's house? A. We try to -- or I try to bring evidence out in nondescript packages so that the investigative process is not compromised. Q. The investigative process is not compromised, so you put it in a trash bag? A. Well, it's pretty hard to see what's inside a trash bag, so yeah. Q. Now, you had been collecting blood drops that morning in the driveway, correct? A. Yes. Q. You had cards all over the driveway for the blood drops, correct? A. Correct. Q. You made no effort at all to conceal that evidence collection from the media, did you? A. I -- the media wasn't there early in the morning. I did not consider that they would all be at the Rockingham location when I got back. Q. So the reason you didn't do that in secret was because there was no media there in the morning? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, what was it about Mr. Simpson's reference vial that you concluded you needed to conceal it from the media? A. It's not so -- Well, at that point, there was just so much coverage that the -- less the media knew, the better. Q. So you did that intentionally, put it in a trash bag to take it back to the lab to conceal it? A. I usually place items of evidence in nondescript packaging. Q. Did you have other envelopes with you at the time? A. Not at that time. Q. You had them in your truck? A. They were in the truck. Q. Now, you gave this trash bag to Andrea Mazzola, did you not? A. Yes. Q. You've seen pictures of her dragging it out of Rockingham? A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, "dragging." Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Pulling it out behind her? A. Well, she's carrying it. Q. Carrying it. You never told her was in it? A. I didn't know her location when I received the vial. I didn't think I had to. I thought she was in the relative vicinity of when I accepted the vial of -- within the envelope. I thought she knew what was in it. Q. You had no conversation with her about the fact that you had given her Mr. Simpson's reference vial in a trash bag to take out to the crime scene truck? A. That's -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you collect blood your supposed to refrigerate it as soon as possible, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It depends on the use for the blood. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You're supposed to refrigerate it as soon as possible, aren't you, Mr. Fung? A. It's -- well, of a reference vial? Q. Yes. A. Is that what were talking about? Q. Yes. A. It's preferrable. Q. When you got back to the lab that night with the vial still in the trash bag, what did you do with it? A. I kept it in the evidence processing room where it was a secure location. Q. You left it on the table in the trash bag, didn't you? A. I did. Q. There's a refrigerator right outside that room that is secure; isn't there? A. The stock room has a less -- has a lower level of security than the evidence processing room. Also, I knew that there was preservatives in the blood vial and it would probably be tested or used soon so I did not see the urgent necessity for it to be refrigerated at that point in time. Q. So you left it in a trash bag on a counter at SID all night, didn't you? A. It was a clean trash bag and it was in a -- on a table at night, yes. Q. It had no markings on the trash bag at all, that would enable anyone else who happened to come into that room, to have any idea what's in that. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts, irrelevant. THE COURT: It's irrelevant, but finish the question. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'll rephrase. Was there any label at all on the trash bag that you used for Mr. Simpson's blood? A. Not on the trash bag itself, no. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. THE COURT: Any redirect? MR. LAMBERT: Little bit, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Yesterday, Mr. Fung, you were asked by Mr. Blasier about a positive presumptive blood test that you obtained on item No. 11 at Rockingham. Do you remember that testimony, sir? A. Yes, I do. Q. I'd like to show you a photograph so you can identify what item No. 11 is. Could you describe for the jury what item No. 11 is? A. Item 11 is a red stain which was detected on this cord that dangles down from somewhere high up on the building, down towards the fence area. Q. We'll need a new number for this. It's 2137. THE CLERK: Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as a Photo containing item No. 11 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2137.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is in the portion of the house where you found the glove; isn't it, Mr. Fung? A. It is. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence. He didn't find the glove. Fuhrman found the glove. THE COURT: You may rephrase the question. Q. Is it in the area where you collected the glove, Mr. Fung? A. Yes, it is. Q. Where was the glove located in relationship to this item No. 11? A. If I could refer to this other board next to it -- Q. Okay. A. -- It would make it easier. The wire I believe is in this area here. And the glove was found approximately here. So it was west, west of the glove and the air conditioner. Q. In order to get from where the glove is, out to the front of the house, do you have to go past this wire? A. Yes. Q. And was this wire hanging down in such a fashion that you would have to move the wire out of the way in order to get past it? A. Yes. Q. And I'd like to show you some other presumptive blood tests that you did that same day. First, could you tell the jury what this photograph is? This -- going to need a new number too. This will be 2138, if you will. (The instrument herein referred to as photo of Mr. Fung swabbing draing of shower was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2138.) Q. What does this photograph depict, Mr. Fung? A. That photograph depicts me holding a cotton applicator in the drain of the master shower. Q. And what are you doing with the cotton applicator? A. I'm doing a presumptive test for blood. Q. Okay. Let's see the next photograph, please. There it is. This doesn't show-up too well on the screen, but what color is at the end of your cotton swab there? A. That is a pink color indicating the presence of blood. Q. Okay. This would be 2139. And this is in the shower in the master bathroom; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Let's now look at the next one, please. THE COURT: Just a minute. Hold on a second. This is 2139. MR. LAMBERT: Last one was. THE COURT: What was 2138. MR. PETROCELLI: The first photo. MR. LAMBERT: We did two photos. 2138 was a far away and 2139 was the cotton swab. This is 2140 and what does this depict, Mr.'Fung? (The instrument herein referred to as photo of cotton swab was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2138.) THE WITNESS: That depicts the master -- in the master bathroom, there's a sink and I'm holding a cotton applicator next to that sink. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo depicting Master bathroom sink was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2140.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And what are you doing with the cotton applicator? A. I had just tested the drain, the drain area. Q. Okay. That's 2140. Let's see 2141. (The instrument herein referred to as photo of pink cotton applicator indicating positive was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2141.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you describe what we see in this picture? A. In that photograph the cotton applicator is pink and I had just performed a presumptive test for blood phenolphthalein and it was positive. Q. And it's that pink color that indicates positive for blood; is that correct? MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates the testimony. Doesn't show positive for blood, it's not a positive test for blood. THE COURT: Overruled. It's presumptive test for blood. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is that right, sir? A. It is a positive -- presumptive test for blood and it is positive. Q. Now, yesterday, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether some other kinds of substances could cause a false positive reading when you do a phenolphthalein presumptive test. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Is there anything that criminalists can do to guard against a false positive result in a phenolphthalein test? A. Yes. Q. By performing the phenolphthalein test in a two step fashion. The chemicals that are oxidizers can be eliminated at -- from being false positives because the phenolphthalein will turn pink when those chemicals are added immediately without the addition of hydrogen peroxide. What we look for is that the phenolphthalein turns pink right at the addition of the hydrogen peroxide. Q. So by using those precautions, you can guard against getting a false positive result? A. Yes. Q. And did you use those precautions in this, this case at Rockingham? A. Correct. Q. And did you get anything that appeared to you to be a false positive result? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. He would know what it looked like. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And I think I forgot to mention you also did one of these tests for blood on that blood drop on the door of the Bronco, the very first item that you collected? A. Yes. A presumptive test for blood was done on the Bronco also. Q. And what was the result of that test? A. That was positive. Q. And did you, again, guard against there being any false positive results? A. Yes. Q. And let me ask you this, Mr. Fung: How many crime scenes have you investigated? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Let me ask you this, Mr. Fung: How many phenolphthalein tests have you conducted? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I approximate that I have done in the neighborhood of 10,000. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about you using pencil to fill out some of your forms. Does the fact that you used pencil rather than pen effect, in any way, the quality of the evidence that you collect? A. No. Q. And Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about you erasing one of the items, changing 18 to 17. Does that effect, in any way, the evidence that you collected? A. No. Q. Did you do that simply to correct a clerical error? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading and also misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) What did you do that for, Mr. Fung? A. The item of evidence, the blood vial was collected back at Rockingham and the shoes, which were item 18, were collected back -- or at the laboratory and I wanted to keep those numbers sequential on the property report to cut down on paperwork. So I made, even though those item numbers were written down as transposed by Ms. Mazzola, I wanted to make sure that they were kept in the same chronological order. Q. And Mr. Blasier also pointed out to you that apparently some of the measurements got transposed from one document to another document in regard to this item number 14, for example, here. Does that change in any way, whether that blood is Mr. Simpson's blood, if you change the location of the items on your report? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, it does not. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Let's now take a look at the picture of the Rockingham -- well, let me ask you this first: Mr. Blasier asked you some questions yesterday in which he implied that the dog named Kato, which was at the Bundy crime scene, was also at the Rockingham crime scene when you were collecting evidence. Do you remember that, sir? A. Yes, I do. Q. Let me show you a picture here of the dog. No, the other one. Is this the dog that you saw at Rockingham, sir? A. That appears to be a likeness of the dog I saw at Rockingham. It was a dark Chow. Q. Dark Chow. Let me show you another picture. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of defendant's residence with black dog, 7/31/96 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1984.) MR. LAMBERT: We need an exhibit number. THE COURT: We've got some photographs. MR. PETROCELLI: 1984 was the first photo. MR. LAMBERT: This is number what? 28. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you see this dog at Rockingham that day, sir? (Indicating to Exhibit No. 28, depicting Akita.) A. No, I did not. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. I have nothing further. MR. BLASIER: Mr.'Fung, does it matter what kind of a dog -- MR. LAMBERT: Excuse me. Can I ask one or more questions, Your Honor? THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) When you -- when you had that trash bag that you put that vial of blood into to take out to the truck -- A. Yes. Q. -- Did you have other items of evidence that you also had in that trash bag to take out to the truck? A. Yes. Q. So it was not just the blood vial but all of those items of evidence that you wanted to keep out of the eyes of the media? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. THE COURT: You going to be long? MR. BLASIER: Not too long. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. You had trash from that bag too, didn't you, Mr. Fung? A. No. Q. You had the cards that you used to mark evidence items, didn't you? A. No, that's not trash. Q. Those are not evidentiary items, are they? A. That's correct. Q. And they shouldn't be mixed in with evidence, should they? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Should they be mixed in with evidence? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does it matter what kind of dog you have wandering and your crime scene in terms of whether that can cause problems for you in collecting evidence? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it important that your documentation be accurate, Mr. Fung? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained for purposes of this trial. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you use the same level of care in collecting evidence as you did in documenting your collection of evidence? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The stain on the wire, that was never confirmed to be blood, was it? A. No. Q. And did you use the stain -- the same technique to collect that stain that you used on all the other stains? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever looked at those stains after you processed them? A. You mean -- Q. Prior to item 11, did you ever look at the control slides for item 11? A. No. Q. You ever compare it to what you consider to be the evidence swatch? A. I have, after the evidence was packaged, I have not seen the items of evidence. Q. Now, you took apart Mr. Simpson's sink traps in his bathroom, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. There was no evidence of any blood in the sink traps, was there? A. None was detected in the traps. Q. And you did -- you tried to do testing in the traps, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And you got no positive results, did you? A. The sink traps were negative. Q. And there was nothing in the bowl that appeared to be blood, correct? A. In the bowl? Q. The bowl of the sink? A. No. It was mainly in the -- where the drain is. There's that lip around it. That was where it was. Q. By the way, is it unusual to find blood in a sink trap? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) In a bathroom? MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell me what sort of things give false positives in scenes with the kind of testing that you did? Doesn't copper plumbing do that sometimes? A. Well, using the two step phenolphthalein test, and making sure that it reacts immediately with the addition of hydrogen peroxide, that can be eliminated. Q. Tell me what sort of things in a sink give you false positives. A. Same things that would give you false positives out of a sink. Q. Cleaners, correct? A. Not with the two step phenolphthalein test. Q. Did you collect any stains in the sink area that was ever confirmed to be blood? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Mr. Fung. MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further. THE COURT: You're excused. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this witness is not excused. We'll be calling him back. THE COURT: Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't 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 DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'd like to move into evidence the remaining exhibits identified in the redirect of Mr. Fung's examination. I don't believe there are any defense objections. They are exhibits 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141, and 1984. THE COURT: Okay; they are received. (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1984, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2137, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2138, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2139, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2140, was received in evidence.) (The instrument herein referred to, which was previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2141, was received in evidence.) MR. BLASIER: No objection. MR. PETROCELLI: Plaintiffs next call to the stand, Susan Brockbank. And Mr. Gelblum will conduct the examination. SUSAN BROCKBANK, called as a witness on behalf of 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: Please be seated. Please, state and spell both your first and your last names for the record. THE WITNESS: Susan Brockbank, S-U-S-A-N, B-R-O-C-K-B-A-N-K. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Brockbank. A. Good afternoon. Q. For whom do you work? A. I work for the City of Los Angeles. Q. What division? A. The scientific investigation division of the police department. Q. How long have you worked for the scientific investigation division? A. About nine and a half years. Q. What did you -- What was your first job there? A. I worked in our toxicology lab. Q. What level were you? A. I was a criminalist 1. Q. Okay. And did you subsequently advance to criminalist 2? A. Yes, I did. Q. When was that? A. About 18 months after I came on the job. Q. Is that an automatic advancement? A. Yes. Q. As long as you're there after 18 months? A. Yes. Q. Did you subsequently advance to criminalist 3? A. Yes, I did. Q. When was that? A. I believe it was about three years ago. I'm not sure of the date. Q. Is that also an automatic advancement? A. No, it's not. Q. What's that based on? A. It's based on a promotional exam. Q. Merit promotion? A. Yes. Q. How many criminalists 3 are there at SID? A. There are ten positions for criminalist 3. Q. So in June of 1994, what position did you hold at SID? A. At that time, I was a criminalist 3. Q. Did you work in a particular unit in June 1994? A. Yes. Q. Which unit? A. I worked in the trace unit. Q. What is the trace unit? A. It's the unit of the lab that performs analysis on things like hairs and fibers, shoe prints, tire tracks, tool marks, paint, glass, just about any kind of physical evidence that might be found at a crime scene. Q. All that kind of physical evidence is included within the term "trace?" A. Yes. Q. When did you start in that unit? A. In December of 1989. Q. Did you, in June 1994 and subsequently, do some work on the investigation of the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you collect hair and trace evidence? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you collect hair and trace evidence in that case from various items of evidence that had been collected from the Bundy crime scene? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where did you do that collection? A. I did that collection in the trace unit. Q. Where is that? A. It's -- well, it's a particular room in the crime laboratory. Q. At SID? A. Yes. Q. That's downtown Los Angeles? A. Yes. Q. You didn't go to the crime scene itself? A. No. Q. Did you also, in connection with this case, collect hair and trace evidence from items of clothing that had been worn by Ron Goldman when he was killed? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you do that work at the lab, as well? A. Yes; I did that in our serology unit of the SID. Q. Now, in collecting all this hair and trace evidence -- and we'll get into the specifics in a minute -- did you use your normal procedures to ensure the integrity of the evidence? A. Yes, I did. Q. Let's get to some specific items of evidence. I want to hand you a document that has been marked as Exhibit 464. MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put that up on the Elmo. (Mr. Foster complies.) Is this cockeyed on purpose? THE BAILIFF: It keeps the glare. (Referring to people.) THE COURT: If it bothers you, you can straighten it out. MR. GELBLUM: The jurors' vision. JURORS: Right. It needs to be straight, about so. She moved it over before she sat down. MR. GELBLUM: Say when. JUROR: To the left. That's far enough. Yeah. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recognize Exhibit 464, Ms. Brockbank? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is that something that I provided you with? A. Yes, it is. Q. Do you recognize that's essentially a reworking of a chart that you testified about in the criminal trial? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading, foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You can answer. A. Sorry. Yes, it is. Q. Essentially the same information that was on that chart? A. Yes, it is. Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that exhibit before testifying today? A. Yes, I did. Q. Can you briefly describe what the exhibit reflects? A. The exhibit is a summary chart of various items of evidence, listing item numbers, a description of the evidence, a date that trace evidence was collected from each of those items, by whom, and a date that that evidence was received by the FBI laboratory, and another item number assigned by the FBI laboratory for that particular item. Q. And does this -- does this chart summarize a number of underlying documents? A. Yes, it does. Q. Are those documents, documents that are prepared in the -- prepared or used in the normal routine -- the normal course of business of SID personnel? A. Yes, they are. Q. Okay. In the ordinary course of business at SID? A. Yes. Q. Have you compared the summary that's shown on 464 with the underlying documents? A. Yes, I have. Q. And does it -- does 464 accurately summarize those documents? A. Yes, it does. Q. Your Honor, I would move 464 into evidence. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to, previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 464, was received in evidence.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I want to go through some of the items on Exhibit 464, and actually like to start with the second page. When we get to the -- some of the items that you personally collected -- MR. GELBLUM: Would you put the second page up. (Indicating to TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) On June 21, 1994, Ms. Brockbank, did you collect some hair and trace evidence from the glove that was found at Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham, which had been assigned LAPD item number 9. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What did you do with the hair and trace evidence when you collected it? A. When I collected it, I placed it into a paper bindle, and that bindle went into a coin envelope. Q. What is that paper bindle? A. It's a piece of paper, basically folded in thirds in one direction, kind of like this (indicating), and then again folded in third in the other direction, to form a little pouch, if you will, to hold evidence. Q. Is that standard procedure at SID? A. Yes, it is. Q. Generally speaking, how did you go about collecting the hair and trace evidence from the evidence items? A. I began by examining the items and picking off anything that I could see on each of those items, just visually examining, kind of turning it against the light so I could see anything kind of sticking out, picking those items off, placing them into the bindle. And I lightly kind of scraped and shook each item over a piece of white paper, and anything additional that fell off also went into the bindle. Q. Okay. And when you put the material into the bindle, did you put any labeling on the bindle? A. Yes, I did. Q. What labeling? A. A description of what type of evidence, hairs and fibers or debris, that was removed from each item; the date, time, my initials, item number DR number. Q. Identifying information? A. Yes. Q. And then you said you put that bindle into a what? A. A coin envelope. Just a small kind of manila envelope. Q. Okay. Did you put any labeling on that coin envelope? A. Yes; it was similarly labeled. Q. Did you give the hair and trace evidence that you collected from the Rockingham glove a new item number? A. Yes, I did. Q. What item number is that? A. It was assigned item No. 110. Q. Is that information that you just told us about reflected on Exhibit 464? A. Yes, it is. MR. GELBLUM: Steve, would you go across the line for 110. Could you go up and see the headings on the chart, as well. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) That shows a description of what you collected, generally speaking; is that right? A. Yes, it is. Q. Collection date includes June 21, right? A. Yes, it does. Q. And you collected it? A. That's correct. Q. Keep going across. We'll get to the last two columns a little later. Now, did you also collect some additional hair and trace evidence from the Rockingham glove on June 23? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did you do with that evidence when you collected it? A. That was placed into another paper bindle, and then placed into the coin envelope. Q. Was that a separate bindle and separate coin envelope from the ones you prepared on June 21? A. It was a separate bindle, but the same coin envelope, because it was still part of the same item. Q. Now, on June 21, did you also collect some hair and trace evidence from a hat that was found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco which had been given the item number 27? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did you do with that hair and trace evidence? A. Again, I placed it into a paper bindle, and that paper bindle went into a coin envelope. Q. Did you give that hair and trace evidence that you collected from the hat a new number? A. Yes, I did. Q. What number was that? A. I have No. 111. Q. Was this information reflected on the chart? A. Yes, it is. Q. Again, on June 21, did you collect some hair and trace evidence from the glove that was found at the Bundy crime scene which had been given the item No. 37? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you follow the same procedures for collecting and packaging that hair and trace evidence as you've already described? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you collect some additional evidence from that, the Bundy glove, on June 23? A. Yes, I did. Q. By the way, did the trace evidence that you collected from the Bundy glove include any debris other than hairs and fibers? A. Yes, it did. Q. What kind of debris? A. Like dirt, maybe some plant material. Q. So you found some dirt connected with the glove found at Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Now, on the same day, did you also collect some hair and trace evidence from the blue knit cap that was found at the Bundy crime scene that was -- had been the knit cap, had been labeled as item No. 38? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you collect hairs from different parts of that hat? A. Yes. Q. Did you collect hairs from both the -- or hair and trace evidence from both the inside and the outside of the hat? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you put the materials from the inside and from the outside in the same bindle or different bindles? A. I put them in different bindles. Q. And did you label those accordingly from where you had found the evidence? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you follow the same procedures in collecting and packaging that material as you had, as you've already described, with respect to the other material? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you give that hair and trace evidence from the Bundy glove a new item number? A. Yes. Q. And what item number was that? A. Item No. 113. Q. Okay. MR. GELBLUM: Did I misspeak? Did I say the glove or did I say the cap? MR. LEONARD: You said glove. MR. GELBLUM: I meant to say cap. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) So the record is clear, the hair and trace evidence you collected from the cap, you labeled as item 113; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And the material from the glove was labeled as what number? A. From the Bundy glove? Q. Yes. A. Was item No. 112. Q. Now, when you collected the hair and trace evidence from the blue knit cap that was found at Bundy, that you labeled as item 113, did you also collect some debris from that cap? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did that debris include? A. Dirt and plant material. Q. That's from the blue knit cap at Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Now, you said a little earlier that you also collected some hair and trace evidence from some of the clothing that Ron Goldman was found in; is that right? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Okay. MR. GELBLUM: Just so we can keep the numbers straight, I show you another document. I believe it's part of Exhibit 1412, but I'm not sure. Just to be safe, let me give it a new number. I'm not sure it's from 1412. MR. PETROCELLI: New exhibit number? MR. GELBLUM: New exhibit and we're up to -- THE CLERK: 2142. (The instrument herein referred to as Los Angeles Police Deparment Property Report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2142.) Q. You have in front of you, a document marked 2142. Can you tell us what that is? A. Yes. This is a police department property report. Q. Was that a document that's issued and used in the ordinary course of business at SID? A. Yes, it is. Q. For what purposes? A. For booking various items of evidence into our property unit. Q. Okay. There's two signatures at the bottom of Exhibit 2142. Do you recognize either one of them? A. Yes, I do. Q. Whose are they? A. The signature at the lower left-hand corner is that of Gregory Matheson, who is an assistant lab director at our laboratory. And the signature on the lower right-hand corner is that of Denise Lewis, who is a laboratory technician at our laboratory. Q. And was she a lab technician in June '94, as well? A. Yes, she was. MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to offer that in evidence, Your Honor, 1412. MR. PETROCELLI: No. MR. GELBLUM: 2142. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Okay received. (The instrument herein referred to, previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2142, was received in evidence.) Q. Now, does Exhibit 2142 reflect how Ms. Lewis came into position of the item listed here? MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Have you seen this document before? A. Yes, I have. Q. Have you seen documents similar to this that reflect the delivery of evidence to SID from other offices? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. And does that include documents you've seen before that reflect the delivery to SID of evidence from the coroner's office? A. Yes. Q. And does this document reflect such a delivery? A. Yes, it does. Q. And when does this document reflect that items were received at SID from the coroner's office? A. This document says that these items were received on June 24, 1994. Q. From the coroner's office? A. From the coroner's office. Q. And does this document reflect Ms. Lewis entering various items into the LAPD's numbering system? MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is this document -- have you seen documents similar to this, where items are received from the coroner's office to SID, and assigned new item numbers? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Why don't you just have her testify from the official document? MR. GELBLUM: This is the official document. THE COURT: Have her testify from it, rather than having her draw conclusions as to who did what. MR. BLASIER: I'd object to having her testify from the document. The document speaks for itself. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What does this document say as to what number Ms. Lewis assigned to Ron's hair kit item -- I'm sorry -- hair kit, Ron Goldman's hair kit? A. His hair kit was given item number 73, according to this report. Q. What is a hair kit? A. That's something that's taken from a decedent by a coroner's investigator or coroner's criminalist. What it includes are samples of body hair from all over the body: Head hairs -- it generally includes head hairs, eyelash, eyebrow hairs, arm hairs, sometimes leg hairs. If the victim is a male and has facial hair, it may include moustache and beard hair, that sort of thing. Q. Okay. And what item number was assigned to Ron's pants? A. His pants were given item number 79. Q. And his shirt? A. His shirt was given item number 81. MR. GELBLUM: And on the next page, Steve. (Mr. Foster displays page on TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What item number was given to Nicole's hair kit? A. That was given item number 83. Q. And Nicole's dress? A. Her dress was given number 86. Q. Thank you. MR. GELBLUM: Steve, would you put back up 464, the second page. (Mr. Foster complies.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mrs. Brockbank, on July 27, 1994, did you collect hair and trace evidence from the pants that Ron Goldman was wearing when he was killed? A. Yes, I did. Q. And those pants we saw are labeled as item 79? A. Yes. Q. And what did you do with that hair and trace evidence when you collected it, same things you did before? A. Yes. Q. And did you give the hair and trace evidence you got from those pants a new item number? A. Yes, I did. Q. What item number? A. Item No. 161. Q. Okay. On the same day, did you collect hair and trace evidence from Ron's shirt, which we've just seen labeled as item number 81? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you use the same procedures in collecting that evidence as you've already testified to with respect to the other items? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you give that hair and trace evidence from Ron's shirt a new item number? A. Yes, I did. Q. Which number? A. Item No. 163. Q. And again, on the same day, did you collect some hair and trace evidence from -- I'm sorry. On Ron's shirt, did you have two separate item numbers for hair and trace evidence collected from Ron's shirt? A. Yes. Q. Why did you do that? A. Actually, the second item number, item No. 165, that was hair and trace removed from a bag which once contained his shirt. Those items were inside this bag. Q. And 163 was directly from the shirt? A. Correct. Q. Now, on the next day, July 28, did you collect some hair and trace evidence from item number 91, which was a white towel that was found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you collect that in the same manner as you previously described? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you give that hair and trace evidence from the white towel a new item number? A. Yes. Q. And what item number was that? A. Item No. 166. Q. All right. Again, on July 28, did you also collect some hair and trace evidence from a plastic sheet that was found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco that had been identified as item number 93? A. Yes. Q. And did you collect that in the same manner as you previously testified? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you give that hair and trace evidence from the plastic sheet a new item number? A. Yes. Q. What number? A. Item No. 1367. Q. On August 2, Mrs. Brockbank, did you collect hair and trace evidence from a shovel that was collected from Mr. Simpson's Bronco that had been labeled as item number 92? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you collect that in the same manner as you previously testified to? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you give that another item number? A. Yes. Q. And what was that? A. Item No. 169. Q. And a couple days later, did you collect some hair and trace material from item number 13 which were the socks that were collected from Mr. Simpson's bedroom? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you collect that in the same manner as you previously testified? A. Yes. Q. And package it in the same manner? A. Yes. Q. And did you give that hair and trace evidence a new item number? A. Yes. Q. Which was what? A. Item number 221. Q. Now, finally, in terms of your collection, on August 23, 1994, did you collect some additional material from Ron Goldman's shirt, item number 81? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what material was that? A. It was more hair, fiber and dirt, blood, debris -- sorry. Q. Did you give that a new item number? A. Yes, I did. Q. Which was what? A. 285. Q. Did you collect that and package it in the same manner us previously testified to? A. Yes. Q. Did you put that in a separate bindle from the other items you collected from Goldman's shirt? A. Actually I believe that debris I placed into a Petri dish, a plastic Petri dish, which is just another type of container rather than a paper bindle. Q. And did you label the Petri dish? A. Yes. Q. In that similar manner to what you testified previously? A. Yes. Q. Now, back up on the first page of Exhibit 464, and over to the first line of the second page, there's some references to items collected by people other than you. You see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you previously just walk us through what items were collected, by the various people? MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. GELBLUM: She already testified she reviewed the underlying documents and this accurately summarizes those documents. THE COURT: Then use the underlying documents. MR. GELBLUM: Well, let's just go through it in the same way we have. MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. That's a list you created. You can rely on business records from -- you rely on business records. Use the business records. MR. GELBLUM: The summary section as well in 1500 of the Evidence Code. THE COURT: There's an objection. MR. GELBLUM: The evidence -- the exhibit's been admitted in evidence, correct, Your Honor? THE COURT: Excuse me. The list has. MR. GELBLUM: Okay. THE COURT: There's been no testimony with regards to it. Without some foundation, I'm not going to just let that list come in as proof of the items contained therein. It's just a summary. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mrs. Brockbank, did you review documents when you were comparing this Exhibit 464 to the underlying documents that reflect that Mr. Goldman's hair kit was collected by Claudia Ratcliffe from the coroner's office on June 13, 1994. MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Yes, I did. Q. And what document was that? A. The actual hair kit envelope itself. I examined a photograph and on the hair kit envelope. It has the date and a signature by Claudia Ratcliffe, collected by -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike. She did not examine the item. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. BLASIER: Move to strike her answer -- response of -- she didn't identify the items. THE COURT: Answer remains. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you review documents, Mrs. Brockbank, that reflect that on August 15, 1994, Colin Yamauchi of SID collected a sample from Ron Goldman's pants? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And by the way, at a later point in time, was that sample given a new item number other than 79? A. Yes, it was. Q. What item number was that? A. I'd have to refer to my notes. Q. Go ahead. (Witness reviews documents.) A. Item number 79 was given new item number 428. Well, the sample that was removed from item 79 was given item number 428. Q. Okay. Did you also review documents, Ms. Brockbank, that reflected that on August 15, 1994 Mr. Yamauchi collected -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Excuse me a second, please. MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. THE COURT: I don't know where you're going, but you're going from this chart you got up on the TV screen, 79, to a bunch of other numbers. I don't know where those other numbers are. MR. GELBLUM: They're not on the chart, Your Honor. THE COURT: I know. MR. GELBLUM: I'm just having the witness testify to what that number is, that new number is. MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GALBLUM) Did you see -- have you seen documents, business records of SID that reflect that new item number, Mrs. Brockbank? MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. They can put the business records in. They can't have a witness describe them when they're not here. THE COURT: I agree. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, may we approach briefly, please? THE COURT: All right. (The following proceeding were held at bench:) MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, under the -- we're working both on the business records exception, which she established, I believe, for these summary voluminous documents exception which -- THE COURT: Fine. MR. GELBLUM: Which allows -- THE COURT: You haven't shown me the business record. You just showed me a summary. MR. GELBLUM: The defense has all those business records as -- I have had ample opportunity to review them. THE COURT: The jury doesn't have it. I don't have it, there's objection. MR. PETROCELLI: Under 1509, if the records are available for inspection, they don't need to be actually produced. THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, you're going from a summary that has one set of numbers, to some sort of record with another set of numbers on which there's nothing on which we can verify her testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: Forget this last thing. It's not on here. All she's trying to do -- MR. GELBLUM: I won't give the new numbers. MR. PETROCELLI: -- Is establish the chain of custody of the trace evidence that was taken from the items and then send to the various testing agencies like we did with Mr. Matheson. It's the identical document, sort of document under 1509. We don't have to produce the actual underlying records. They're available for inspection and the defense has them. They haven't objected. They want all those records introduced. MR. GELBLUM: I won't -- MR. PETROCELLI: We're just establishing the chain. THE COURT: Well, you're establishing a bunch of other numbers. The jury's listening to a bunch of other numbers that have no relationship to anything they've had. MR. GELBLUM: I won't put those other numbers on. I'm just trying to clarify. THE COURT: If you're confusing me, you're confusing the jury. MR. GELBLUM: I -- that's a very safe bet. I will stay away from the new numbers. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. (The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Brockbank, in reviewing Exhibit 464 and comparing it to the underlying documents, did you review documents that collect -- that Nicole's hair kit was collected on June 13, 1994, and assigned a item number 83? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did you also review documents that reflect that Nicole's dress fabric sample was checked on August 15, 1994 from item number 86? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you also review documents that reflect that fibers from the left rear of Mr. Simpson's Bronco were collected on August 11, 1994 and assigned item number 226? A. Yes, I did. Q. And similarly, did you review documents that reflect that on August 11, 1994 fibers from the right front of Mr. Simpson's Bronco were collected and assigned item number 228? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you also reflect documents that on the same day, August 11, fibers were collected from the right rear of Mr. Simpson's Bronco and assigned item number 230? A. Yes. Q. And again, did you review documents that reflect that on August 11, 1994, fibers were collected from the rear cargo area of Mr. Simpson's Bronco and assigned item number 231? A. Yes, I did. Q. And then did you actually collect some hairs from an Akita on November 30, 1994? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where did you do that? A. It was in the yard at the Rockingham location. Q. Okay, And what did that Akita look like? What color, do you recall? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. And you assigned those hairs, item No. 366? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And then on the top of the next page, did you review documents that reflected that on June 14, 1994, Dennis Fung collected some hair and trace evidence from item number 9, the Rockingham glove? A. Yes, I did. Q. And that was assigned item number 19? A. Yes. Q. Let me back up to the first page again in the middle. Did you collect some hair exemplars from Mr. Simpson on July 12, 1994? A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you tell the jury please what a hair exemplar is? A. A hair exemplar is a representative sample of hair from a person, in this case, Mr. Simpson and it was just head hair. So a representative sample is just hairs from all over the head, all areas of the head. So if I was collecting a sample of hair from myself, an exemplar, I wouldn't take a bunch from the front right here 'cause there's a lot of hairs in the back that are quite different than these ones right here in the front. So I would collect samples from all different areas of the head. That's what I did in this case. Q. And where was Mr. Simpson when you made that collection? A. He was outside of his cell at L.A. county jail. Q. What did you do with Mr. Simpson's hair exemplar when you collected it? A. I placed it into a paper bindle and that went into an envelope. Q. And did you label those in a manner you described before? A. Yes. Q. Did you package, by the way, package and label the hair exemplar you took from the Akita in the same manner? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you also collect hair exemplars from various employees of SID, the coroner's office and the LAPD? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Like to show you another document which has been marked as Exhibit 484. MR. BLASIER: May I see that, please? May I have a copy, please? MR. GELBLUM: I gave you a copy couple days ago. THE COURT: What number? MR. GELBLUM: 484. Your Honor, it's got a slightly different description on the Exhibit list. This is a replacement for that same information, different description. Do you recognize that document, Mrs. Brockbank? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is that something that I provided to you? A. Yes, it is. Q. Is that like 464, a restatement in a different format of information from a chart you testified about in a criminal trial? A. Yes, it is. Q. Can you briefly describe what is reflected on this document? A. Yes. The far left column lists the LAPD item number that was assigned to each item. Then there's a description of each item listing the person whose hair exemplar corresponds to that item number; followed by the collection date, which is the date I collected hairs from that person. Well, most of the collection was done by me. You'll see the "collected by" and you'll see Brockbank on every space. Exhibit 1, that was my own hair which was collected by someone else. And then there's a "received by FBI" date and then the FBI item number that was assigned to it. Q. Okay. And you think -- I think you personally collected all these exemplars, other than the one that was collected from you -- A. Yes. Q. -- And obviously were present when that one was collected? A. Yes, I was. Q. Who -- was that collected from you? A. That was collected by Ron Raquel, R-A-Q-U-E-L. Q. Who is that? A. He's a co-worker of mine. Q. At SID? A. Yes. Q. And does Exhibit 484 accurately reflect the information regarding your collection and Mr. Raquel's collection of hair exemplars? A. Yes. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I'd move 484 into evidence. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein referred to as a document entitled "Summary of Hair Exemplars from LAPD and Coroner Personnel" was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 484.) (The instrument herein referred to as a document entitled "Summary of Hair Exemplars from LAPD and Coroner Personnel" was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 484.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Some of the people on here, Ms. Brockbank, the jury already heard about. Some are new names. If you could, I'd like for you tell us who those people are? A. Certainly. Q. Who is Sandra Clairborne? A. She is a forensic fingerprint specialist, works in our latent prints unit. Q. And Jean Braggs, B-R-A-G-G-S, who is that? A. Yes. He's also a forensic print specialist. Q. And Rolf, R-O-L-F, Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R who's that? A. He's a photographer in SID. Q. And going down a little further, Michele Kestler, K-E-S-T-L-E-R, who is that? A. She's is our lab director currently. Q. What did she do in November, 1994? A. What did she do? Q. What was her job? A. She was the Assitant Lab Director at this time. Q. And in June, 1994? A. She was also the assistant lab director then. Q. And Colin Yamauchi, who is that? A. He is a coworker of mine. He's a criminalist. Q. And on the next page, who is Erin, E-R-I-N, Riley, R-I-L-E-Y? A. She's also a criminalist. Q. And Claudia Ratcliffe we mentioned previously, who is she? A. She's a coroner's investigator. Q. Lastly is Ed McGowan and just shows that he checked that hair a couple months after the others. Why was that? A. He had shaved his head. We had to wait for his hair to grow out. Q. Who is Mr. McGowan? A. He's a police officer. Q. Now -- thank you. On August 8, 1994, did you deliver certain materials to the FBI in Washington DC? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did you deliver? A. Would you like me to list the item numbers or -- Q. Sure, you have to refer to Exhibit 464. A. Is that the first Exhibit you gave me? Q. Yes. A. Yes. There were a number of items, including item 73, Goldman's hair kit; item 83, which is Nicole's hair kit; item 122, which is Mr. Simpson's hair exemplar; item number 19, which was the hair and trace from the Rockingham glove; item 110, which was the hair and hair trace from -- Oops. Did I just say -- no, I'm sorry. Item 110, which was also hair and trace from the Rockingham glove; item 111, which is hair and trace from item 27, the hat and the Bronco. Q. Item 112, which was hair and trace from the Bundy glove; item 113, hair and trace from Bundy hat, the knit cap; item 161, which is hair and trace from Mr. Goldman's pants which were item 79. Item 163, which is hair and trace from Mr. Goldman's shirt, item 81. No. 165, which is hair and trace from Mr. Goldman's shirt item 81. Actually, the bag that the shirt was in -- Item 166 which is hair and trace from the towel from the Bronco item number 91. Item 167, which was hair and trace from the plastic sheet from the Bronco, item number 93. And item 169, which was hair and trace from the glove from the Bronco, item number 92 and finally item number 221, which was hair and trace from item number 13, socks. Q. Now, Mrs. Brockbank, to whom did you deliver those items at the -- to the FBI? A. I delivered those to Douglas Deedrick. Q. Can you spell that for the reporter? A. Douglas, D-O-U-G-L-A-S, I think, Deedrick, D-E-E-D-R-I-C-K. Q. Who is Mr. Deedrick? A. He's the head of the FBI laboratory hair and fiber unit. Q. Did Mr. Deedrick assign new FBI item numbers to the items that you delivered? MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you see Mr. Deedrick assign new FBI item numbers for the items reflected on Exhibit 464? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And are those numbers reflected on Exhibit 464? A. Yes, they are. Q. Okay. Now, some of those items, particularly the ones on the first page of the FBI items start with a K and on the next two pages the item numbers start with a Q. Do you know what the significance of those different designations is? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is that? A. The K stands for known, K-N-O-W-N, and the Q stands for request -- stands for question. Q. What does that mean? A. "Knowns" are items where you know the origin of those items. For instance, exemplar hair, where you know it came from a particular person's head and the Q'd items are items in question. You're trying to determine the possible source of those items. Q. Okay. A. By comparing them to the knowns. Q. And were the other items of hair and trace evidence that are listed on exhibits 464 and 484 subsequently delivered to the -- delivered to the FBI? A. Yes, they were. Q. And are the dates of those deliveries reflected on exhibits 464 and 484? A. Yes, they are. Q. And are the FBI numbers assigned to those items also reflected on exhibits 464 and 484? A. Yes, they are. Q. Thank you. I have nothing further. THE COURT: 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.) THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Brockbank. A. Good afternoon. Q. Can you tell me how much time you've spent working with the plaintiffs in preparing for your testimony today? A. Altogether, possibly about four hours. Q. And when did you spend that time? A. When? Q. Yes. A. Let's see. I met with Mr. Gelblum -- sorry -- someone last Friday for about two hours, and I spoke with him on the phone for about an hour and a half. And I met with him today for about a half-hour, twenty minutes, something like that. Q. So was last Friday the first contact you had with the plaintiffs at all about this case? A. Yes. Q. Now, when were you given 464, this chart you have in front of you? I'm sorry. 464 is the first one you talked about. A. This one? Q. Correct. When were you given that chart? A. In this form, I think I was either given it yesterday or this morning. I can't remember. Q. Tell me when for -- let's say item number 73 at the top, when did you compare the source documents for the information on this chart now? A. Before coming to court today. Q. And where did you -- where did you get those source documents? A. For that item, I looked at a photograph. Q. What source -- did you look at any source documents? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague. Are we still talking about number 73 or the whole chart? MR. BLASIER: I'm talking about 73 first. THE WITNESS: For item 73, all I reviewed before coming here today was just a photograph. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't look at any source documentation about the time that that item was collected and how it was checked, did you? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: I believe her testimony on direct was that it was a photograph of an envelope, so that might be a document. MR. BLASIER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What was it a photograph of? A. It was a photograph of the hair kit envelope. And on that envelope, it had the date and Ms. Ratcliffe's name, some other information which I didn't really make note of. Q. Did you evaluate any property report -- look at any property reports and compare the information of property reports with anything on this chart? A. Many things, yes. Q. And how long did it take you to look at all of the source documents for this entire chart and verify that it's all accurate? A. About four hours. Q. And when did you spend that -- A. Over the weekend. Q. Now, does this document represent all of the items that are listed or were examined for hair and trace evidence before it was sent to the FBI? A. This document just reflects the collection dates of those items before they were sent to the FBI lab. Q. Were there other times when these items were examined for hair and trace evidence that aren't reflected on this chart? A. Yes. Q. And do you know why those items were left, those dates and times? A. No. Q. Now, you actually do a lot more than just take trace evidence off of an evidence item and put it into a bindle; you do a lot of analysis yourself? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague point in time. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. You did quite a bit of analysis yourself, of hair and trace evidence yourself? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Plaintiffs tell you they weren't going to ask you about any work you actually did other than collecting this? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You examined quite a bit of this evidence for hair and trace evidence other than what's reflected in this chart, correct? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that again? I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So you, yourself, looked at a lot of these items on this chart to do a hair and trace examination at times other than are listed by the collection date, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, the carpet -- there was a piece of carpet that had been cut out of the Bronco. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And that was -- a part of that cut-out had a lot of -- part of it was a part of the rubber mat and part of it was part of the carpeting, correct or was it all carpeting? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope. It's not one of the items listed on the chart. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Where did the fibers come from on the -- from the carpets that you have on your chart? A. Can you tell me what you're referring to? Q. Sure. 228, 230, where did they come from? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, Your Honor. THE COURT: Excuse me. Where did the fibers come from? MR. BLASIER: Correct. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: They came from various areas in the Bronco. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. So this chart doesn't reflect anything that you did with the cut-out carpet sample that was taken out of the Bronco; is that correct? Is that accurate? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope. MR. BLASIER: How do we know? THE COURT: Overruled. You used this chart with her. Mr. Blasier has got a right to cross-examine about this chart. THE WITNESS: You're referring to item number? Q. I think it was -- A. -- 33? Q. I believe. A. Could you say your question again? I'm sorry. Q. Sure. Item No. 33 was the piece of carpet that was cut out of the Bronco from the floorboard area, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that had a lot of carpet fibers attached to it, didn't it? A. It was a piece of carpet, yes. Q. Those carpet fibers are easily dislodged from that carpeting? THE COURT: We'll move into that. I'll sustain the objection. You may examine to the extent that Mr. Gelblum examined this witness with regards to this chart, how she found it, how she put it in bindles, all that stuff. But beyond that, I'm going to sustain the objection. MR. GELBLUM: Good. MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'll bring her back. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mrs. Brockbank, is there anything else at all connected on this chart with anything you did with that piece of carpet from the Bronco? A. No. Q. Is there any evidence item listed on this chart that was stored in the same container, the same box as that piece of carpet from the Bronco? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't quite understand that question. I'll sustain my own objection as to phrasing. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That piece of carpet was kept in the same box as the glove and the knit cap and the cap from the Bronco, wasn't it? MR. GELBLUM: Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this chart reflect the same information that was on the chart that you were asked about in the criminal trial? A. Yes, it does. Q. All of the information that was on the chart in the criminal trial was on this chart? A. I don't believe all of the information is, but some of the information is. Q. What was left off? A. I'd have to look at them side by side to tell you. I can't remember right off the top of my head. Q. Item 33 was left off, correct? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, at some point, Mrs. Brockbank, I think it was decided that you would no longer do any analysis on items; they would be sent to the FBI, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what date was that? A. I don't remember the date. Can I refer to my notes, see if there's something in there? Q. Sure. (Witness reviews documents.) THE WITNESS: Could I get the question again? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Sure. There was a point in time when you were told to stop your analysis and that everything was shipped to the FBI? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Hearsay; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Yes. Was there a time when such an event occurred. Was there such a time? THE WITNESS: I performed many different functions throughout this case, and some of those continued after the time stuff went to the FBI. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Was there a point in time that you were told to stop your analysis on the items listed on this chart? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope. We didn't talk about analysis at all, Your Honor. THE COURT: She sent it to the FBI. Mr. Blasier has a right to find out when and how that decision was made. THE WITNESS: I do not have a specific date of when I stopped doing anything, but the evidence was taken to the FBI on August 8, so it was sometime prior to that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. That was a decision made by the D.A.'s office, right? It wasn't your decision? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know who made that decision? A. No, I don't. Q. It wasn't you, was it? A. No. Q. Looking at item 19 on the chart, which is the Rockingham glove collection date, 6/14, is that the only hair and trace evidence that you recovered from the Rockingham glove? A. I didn't recover item 19 from the Rockingham glove. Q. Is that the only hair and trace evidence that was recovered from that item? Do you know? A. No, it wasn't. Q. How about 110? Does 110 reflect hair and trace from the Rockingham gloves checked on two different dates? Does that represent all item -- all hair and trace evidence that was collected from the Rockingham glove? A. To the best of my knowledge, I have item 110, and 19 included all the hair and trace that were removed from the Rockingham glove. Q. Describe to me the procedure that you used when you collect trace evidence. A. I start off by picking off any evidence that I can see and placing that into a paper bindle. And when I'm through with that, then I will gently scrape, kind of using my fingers, or just kind of shake the item over a piece of paper, to see if anything additional falls off. And that would also go into the bindle. Q. Don't you take substantial precautions that the room that you're working in has no air currents in it? A. Our room doesn't have any swift air current in it. Q. That's very important, because hair and trace evidence can easily be dislodged from an item, can't it? A. It depends on a lot of factors. Q. It can get easily dislodged, can't it? Some of the items you testified about, you found debris in the bags that the item was contained in, rather than the item itself? A. Correct. Q. It's very easy for that type of material to come off those items, particularly when they're in a bag, correct. MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, "very easy." THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't know how easy it would be, but with an item in a bag, there's an abrasive action of that item inside the bag which may cause the item to become dislodged. Q. And every time that you examine an item, you also dump out the bag, as well, to see whether there's debris in the bag, don't you? A. Every time I examine a new item? Is that what you mean? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I do. I look inside the bag and see if there's anything stuck. I kind of reach in and take out anything additional that I see. Q. By the way, did you find a rose/beige carpet fiber on item No. 113, the knit cap? A. I did not make a note of any type -- you know, specific types of fibers I removed from any items. The hairs and fibers were removed from several items, including that cap. Q. And you did no analysis to look at that to see what was in it? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: No. Q. Exhibit 2142, which was the property report -- do you have that in front of you -- from the coroner's office, the list of items from the coroner's office? A. Yes, I do. Q. You have no personal knowledge about the manner in which the items described on that report were collected, do you? A. No; I didn't collect them. Q. And you have no personal knowledge of who collected them, correct? A. Well, I wasn't there when they were collected. But on the envelopes, I did see the name of the person that collected some of the items, Claudia Ratcliffe. Q. All right. And you have no knowledge about whether items on this list were comingled at any time, do you, prior to the time they got to your lab? A. I have no personal knowledge because I wasn't there. I only have personal knowledge of what I saw myself. Q. Now, you're familiar with the procedure that's used to properly preserve bloody clothing, are you not? A. Yes. Q. And when clothing that's bloody has been recovered from a crime scene, is it always dried first before it's packaged? Right? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope. MR. BLASIER: Foundational, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's a proper way to do it, isn't it? A. Yes, that's the proper way to do it. Q. You don't wrap it up until it's dry, correct? A. Correct. Q. And when you opened the package that had Mr. Goldman's shirt in it that you referred to in the chart here, it was clear to you that that had not been properly preserved; isn't that correct? A. It had some mold growth on it, which indicated to me that it was wet at some point, enough to cause mold to grow. Q. Okay. That indicates it wasn't properly preserved by someone, correct? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. The mold growth may stay. But you're asking her to draw a conclusion. I sustain that objection. MR. BLASIER: I -- THE COURT: That's beyond the scope. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The chart indicates that the item number 13, the sock hair and trace was collected on August 4 of 1994, correct? A. Yes. Q. Is that the first time that item was examined for hair and trace evidence? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That was the first and only time I examined that item for trace evidence. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did those socks have a lot of dirt on them, or small amount, or any? A. I don't recall them being particularly dirty. Q. And the Bundy glove wasn't particularly dirty, either, was it, having dirt crusted on it or anything like that? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Compound: "Particularly dirty" and then "dirt crusted." THE COURT: Overruled. I think the witness understands the question. THE WITNESS: I don't recall at this point how dirty or nondirty it was, to be honest. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you have any record you could look at to make that determination? A. No, I didn't make a note in any of my notes that reflect how dirty or not dirty it was, either. Q. Well, you said that you -- that you recovered some trace evidence from that. What did you recover? A. I believe mainly hairs and fibers. Q. Okay. No dirt, that you recall? A. Not that I recall, but there may have been some. I don't know. Q. Well, do you keep a record of what it is that you collect from something? A. I usually write general descriptions, like hairs and fibers, hairs, fiber and debris. Debris would include dirt, and I don't believe I wrote anything about debris over on the Bundy glove. Q. Okay. THE COURT: Excuse me. That's the Bundy glove? MR. BLASIER: Yes. THE WITNESS: I could refer to my notes. MR. BLASIER: Sure. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. For the Bundy glove, I did make a mention of debris removed from that item. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How much? A. I didn't put any quantity down. Q. You have any recollection of whether it was a large quantity or a small quantity? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't recall what quantity it was. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) By the way, trace evidence such as hair and fiber can get moved from one place to another fairly easily, can it not? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Beyond the scope; calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know whether there was ever a survey done of the Bundy area that determined how common fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco might have been dragged from there by his kids, by a dog, by any other mechanism? MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: That's all I had. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. One question, Mrs. Brockbank. You said in collecting the evidence, one of the things you do is use your fingers to get hair and trace evidence off the items of evidence; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you wear gloves when you do that? A. Yes, always. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. Nothing further. MR. BLASIER: Subject to recall. THE COURT: Okay. You're excused, subject to recall. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. KELLY: If we could have one moment, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time, it will be a videotape deposition of an out-of-state witness of Brenda Vernich. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have one further question for Mrs. Brockbank. May I have her back for one quick question? MR. KELLY: You're not going to recall her? MR. BLASIER: Yeah, we'll recall her. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mrs. Brockbank, with respect to the knit cap on the chart, was that sent to the FBI, the bindles that you made? A. The bindles that I made and the cap itself. MR. BLASIER: All right; thank you. That's all. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: You may proceed. Who is this going to be? MR. PETROCELLI: Brenda Vernich, Your Honor. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this deposition, Mr. Kelly was asking the questions; I was also asking questions; and I believe, just for the benefit of the Court, there was a third attorney I think who may have asserted an objection. I think that was someone representing the witness. MR. KELLY: Borger. MR. LEONARD: So it's clear to the jury who the parties were. THE COURT: Who was that person? MR. LEONARD: There was an attorney representing the witness. MR. KELLY: Mr. Borger, B-O-R-G-E-R, who was there on behalf of the witness testifying, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. THE COURT: How long is it? MR. KELLY: About 45, 50 minutes, Judge. THE COURT: Huh? MR. KELLY: 45 minutes. THE COURT: 45 minutes? Okay. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry; 53 minutes full play time, Judge. THE COURT: Jury ready for 53 minutes? (Videotape starts to play.) THE COURT: Can you stop that for a second. Counsel have an agreement with the record that -- whether or not you want the reporter to take this? MR. KELLY: I don't think it's necessary. MR. LEONARD: I don't think it's necessary. MR. KELLY: As long as we agree that the transcript of the deposition can be used, if necessary, in the future for evidence, sure. MR. PETROCELLI: We have an agreement that all the objections can be deemed overruled. MR. LEONARD: In every videotape? MR. PETROCELLI: No, no. In this one. (The videotaped deposition of Brenda Vernich, taken on June 18, 1996, was played in open court for the Court and the jury.) (Pause in tape playing.) THE COURT: How much longer is this? MR. KELLY: Five minutes, six minutes. THE COURT: Five more minutes. All right. (Videotape resumed playing.) MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we wanted to in court, convert deposition exhibit numbers into trial exhibit numbers. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibits 1-A and 1-B are photographs of the Rockingham glove. That glove is already in evidence as Exhibit 204 here. Deposition Exhibits 2-A and 2-B are photographs of the Bundy glove, which is already in evidence as Exhibit 129. Deposition Exhibit 3 is our exhibit here, 1784, which is a new one. (The instrument herein referred to as a Printout was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1784.) MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibit 4 is a Trial Exhibit 389. (The instrument herein referred to as Receipt from Bloomingdale's was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 389.) MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibit 5 is Trial Exhibit 390. (The instrument herein referred to as Blow-up of document entitled 'Bloomingdale's Glove Purchase' was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 390.) MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibit 6, we'll need a new number, which is -- which would be 2143. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of check digit calculations was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2143.) MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibit 6-B would be 2144. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of check digit calculations was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2144.) MR. GELBLUM: Deposition Exhibit 6-C would be 2145. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of printout was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2145.) MR. GELBLUM: And we would move all those into evidence. And I would also like to quickly put a couple up on the Elmo, so the jury can see them more clearly from that. Okay? THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 389 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 390 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1784 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2143 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2144 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2145 was received in evidence.) MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your Honor. We weren't able to pass charts. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this. We weren't able to pass charts. THE COURT: What were you going to do? MR. GELBLUM: Put a couple exhibits up on the Elmo, on the screen, so the jury can see them. THE COURT: All right; it's not passing charts. Put them on the Elmo. MR. GELBLUM: This one is exhibit 389, Trial Exhibit 389. That's the receipt. (Exhibit 389 displayed on Elmo.) MR. GELBLUM: Next one is Exhibit 390. There you go. (Exhibit 390 displayed on Elmo.) MR. GELBLUM: Can you focus on the signature there. Next is Deposition Exhibit 6, which is 2143. That's it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Um-hum. MR. GELBLUM: Again, we move those into evidence. THE COURT: Proceed. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we, at this point, would like to call our next witness, who is on a plane from New York. He'll be here this evening. This may be a good time; otherwise, we can proceed to read in some other criminalist's trial testimony from some other photographs. We would prefer to wait until the morning, but it's up to you. THE COURT: Jurors, you get a chance to vote yet today? JURORS: No. THE COURT: Well, jury, hopefully, you can make it to the polls by the time it's closed. Again, don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions; don't let anybody talk to you about it; don't watch anything on TV, newspaper, or on the radio. Okay. Thank you. (At 4:10 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, November 6, at 8:30 A.M.) |