Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (part 2) — Monday, November 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\4\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 8 of 57

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, November 4, 1996 • Utterances: 288

Defense attorney Robert Blasier cross-examines LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung on his evidence collection at both crime scenes, systematically exposing procedural failures: Fung never noticed or collected blood from the Bundy back gate on June 13 despite walking through it multiple times; he carried the Rockingham glove into the Bundy crime scene at Detective Lange's request; and he failed to collect or even notice a piece of paper between the bodies that may have contained shoe imprint evidence. Blasier also highlights the suspicious coincidence that a different blood sample collected from the back gate on July 3 received the same item number (116) as a blood sample Fung had collected from the front gate on June 13.

# 1 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you, Mr. Fung.

I have one question on the area at Rockingham. Isn't it true that from the area of the diagram, there's a -- there's a point in the Rockingham house where the walkway becomes very, very narrow?

# 2 A:

Yes.

# 3 Q:

And, in fact, you can see it fairly well in the bottom left -- actually, the bottom left picture, can you not?

# 4 A:

Yes.

# 5 Q:

It's extremely narrow in there, is it not?

# 6 A:

It's narrow.

# 7 Q:

And did you measure the distance from the corner here, where it gets real narrow, back to the air conditioner?

# 8 A:

I don't remember taking measurements of the air conditioner itself.

# 9 Q:

How about where the glove was found, as compared to the corner where it's very narrow?

# 10 A:

I'm referring to my notes. From the -- from this point to the glove was 19 feet, ten inches.

# 11 Q:

Okay.

Now, we put the Bundy board back up, which is number --

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 67.

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

-- 67.

Now, Mr. Leonard, you can go ahead and sit back down.

# 13 (Counsel resumes his seat.)

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, the distance from Mr. Simpson's gate to where the glove was found is even longer than the distance from Bundy Drive all the way back to the alleyway at Bundy, isn't it?

# 15 A:

The distance from the gate to the Bundy glove? And that distance -- I haven't done a measurement myself. I can take a look.

# 16 Q:

Well, you can take a look. It's only 170 feet from the alleyway to Bundy, according to plaintiffs' chart here, correct?

# 17 A:

That's correct.

# 18 Q:

It's about 250 feet from Mr. Simpson's gate to where the glove was found?

# 19 A:

Between that and --

# 20 Q:

Approximately?

# 21 A:

Approximately, yes.

# 22 Q:

220.

Now, did I understand you to say that you confined yourself to just the walkway and the caged-in area?

# 23 A:

That is where my search was directed.

# 24 Q:

Were you the criminalist in charge of processing that scene?

# 25 A:

Yes.

# 26 Q:

Was there somebody else that was to look other places?

# 27 A:

Well, the detective had looked all over the crime scene, and he pointed out the items of evidence he wanted me to concentrate on.

# 28 Q:

That was Detective Lange?

# 29 A:

Yes.

# 30 Q:

He never told you about any blood on the back gate, did he?

# 31 A:

I don't remember him telling me about the blood on the back gate.

# 32 Q:

Now, the back gate is part of the walkway, is it not?

# 33 A:

Yes, it is.

# 34 Q:

Now, did you confine your search to just everything within a couple inches of the ground?

# 35 A:

No.

# 36 Q:

So you looked higher than that. Was your area of responsibility a little higher than that?

# 37 A:

Yes.

# 38 Q:

How many times did you walk in and out of the back gate while you were processing that scene?

# 39 A:

Several.

# 40 Q:

And is it your testimony that you never looked at it?

# 41 A:

It's my testimony that I don't remember seeing or having been -- I don't remember being told about the blood on the back gate on that day, and I don't remember seeing blood on the back gate that day.

KEY QUOTE

# 42 Q:

Your testimony was that you never looked at the back gate while you were at Bundy?

# 43 A:

I may have seen it, but I didn't search it, that I can remember.

# 44 Q:

How long were you at Bundy?

# 45 A:

I was there for about four hours.

# 46 Q:

It was light the whole time, wasn't it?

# 47 A:

Yes, it was.

# 48 Q:

You had access to the whole area the whole time, didn't you?

# 49 A:

Yes, I did.

# 50 Q:

Anybody ever tell you go look at the gate?

# 51 A:

Nobody ever told me that.

# 52 Q:

Now, you had made a reference in your direct testimony about collecting things sequentially in terms of assigning them numbers. Do you recall that?

# 53 A:

Generally, we like to collect items of evidence sequentially, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

# 54 Q:

Well, you try to do that. Tell me why you try to do that.

# 55 A:

Well, we try to number items of evidence in a logical manner; and if it's in a logical manner, then, usually, they go in a sequential order in regard to proximity.

# 56 Q:

Now, who is it that directs the photographer to take pictures when you're marking evidence?

# 57 A:

That would be me or the criminalist in charge of the scene.

# 58 Q:

And is it accurate that you have -- essentially, you have the photographer walking with you, as you assign numbers to things in a sequential order?

# 59 A:

No, not really. I'll lay out the numbers and then have the photographer take pictures after I've gone through, most of the time. But again, that's not a hard and fast rule, either.

# 60 Q:

Now, Mr. Fung, you are the one that assigns the numbers that are on the little cards, correct?

# 61 A:

Yes, I was at that scene.

# 62 Q:

And all the cards that appear on the board there, 67, are cards that you prepared and put on the ground, correct?

# 63 A:

Yes.

# 64 Q:

Now, as far as the Bundy drops are concerned, the first drop is No. 112; is that correct?

# 65 A:

The first drop along the trail?

# 66 Q:

Correct.

# 67 A:

Yes.

# 68 Q:

And you gave that No. 112 as being the first drop closest to the bodies, correct?

# 69 A:

Excuse me?

# 70 Q:

You can come look.

# 71 A:

Yes; 112 is this one.

# 72 Q:

And you're trying to process the crime scene in a logical sequence?

# 73 A:

Attempting to, yes.

# 74 Q:

And you gave the next drop 113, which was the next one in sequence. You gave that a photo I.D. No. 113, correct?

# 75 A:

That's correct.

# 76 Q:

You went further down the path and we get to 114, which is the next drop in the sequence, correct?

# 77 A:

That's correct.

# 78 Q:

You assigned that 114 consecutively, correct?

# 79 A:

Yes.

# 80 Q:

Then we get back right by the back gate, we have 115, correct?

# 81 A:

Yes.

# 82 Q:

And you assigned that sequentially because that's the next drop on the way out?

# 83 A:

Correct.

# 84 Q:

By the way, how far is 115 from the gate?

# 85 A:

From this gate?

# 86 Q:

The back gate.

# 87 A:

I don't have that measurement.

# 88 Q:

Very close, isn't it?

# 89 A:

Oh, it's possibly within 10 feet.

# 90 Q:

Mr. Fung, what was No. 116?

# 91 A:

No. 116 was a red stain on the front gate.

# 92 MR. BLASIER:

We need a new number, Your Honor.

# 93 THE COURT:

We want a new number.

# 94 MR. BLASIER:

The next number.

# 95 THE CLERK:

2134.

# 96 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of stain No. 116 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2134.)

# 97 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, let me show you what's been marked as 2134. That is a picture of stain 116 is it not?

# 98 A:

That is a picture of photo item 116.

# 99 Q:

Okay.

# 100 A:

Or photo No. 116, which became item number --

# 101 Q:

Fifty what?

# 102 A:

51.

# 103 Q:

So you went from item 115, all the way back to the front gate, and put the card on 116 and had a picture taken, correct?

# 104 A:

Well, yes.

# 105 Q:

Then you went all the way back out to 117, which is a drop on the other side of the back gate, correct?

# 106 A:

That's correct.

# 107 Q:

This is a different 116 than the one you collected on July 3, isn't it?

# 108 A:

Yes, it is.

# 109 Q:

You looked on that back gate; you didn't find any blood. Somebody had told you to look at the gate, and you went to the front gate, didn't you?

# 110 A:

I never -- I don't recall looking on the back gate that day.

# 111 Q:

Why did you leave your sequence at 115 and go back to the front gate and then come back out the back?

# 112 A:

Ms. Mazzola saw that there was additional blood on the front gate and said this would be a good area to get more blood from, because it was in a different area than the other items of blood we had checked around the caged-in area.

So I agreed to give her a number and let her collect that blood from the front gate.

# 113 Q:

She was collecting all of this blood along here, wasn't she?

# 114 A:

Well, you have to realize that we are numbering first; and then as we're going along, if we see something additionally and she's doing something else and wants to -- and she wanted to collect the 116 while I was numbering additional items of evidence down the line. She came up to me and said, "I think we should collect more blood from the front," and I gave her that number.

# 115 Q:

And you collected one sample from the front gate and went back out to the back?

# 116 A:

I gave her -- I said, "Go ahead and get that blood that you want to collect, photo I.D. No. 116."

# 117 Q:

Is it your testimony that it's just a coincidence that the blood drop No. 116 collected on July 3 from the back gate has the same number as stain 6, 116 which you collected on the 13th?

# 118 A:

It's quite a coincidence.

KEY QUOTE

# 119 Q:

Now, when you got to the Bundy scene, the print people were already looking for fingerprints, weren't they?

# 120 A:

At the Bundy scene?

# 121 Q:

Yeah.

# 122 A:

Yes.

# 123 Q:

The things are checked for fingerprints, they put on graphite on objects to try and determine whether there's a print there, correct? A "dusting" it's called?

# 124 A:

Well, they use dusting powder. It's made of different chemicals or different compounds.

# 125 Q:

When you're dusting for prints, if you get that on the blood, you can really mess up the blood, can't you?

# 126 A:

It's preferable to collect blood before printing.

# 127 Q:

It's a horrible idea to have the print people out there before you even get to the scene, isn't it?

# 128 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

# 129 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 130 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Who was responsible for sending the print people out first?

# 131 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Same objection.

# 132 MR. BLASIER:

Do you know?

# 133 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 134 MR. BLASIER:

Can we have a ground, Your Honor?

# 135 THE COURT:

Beyond the scope of the direct. I think this witness is only testifying to blood and the items he recovered.

# 136 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You were in charge of this crime scene, were you not, processing, Mr. Fung?

# 137 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection.

# 138 DENNIS FUNG:

Is there an objection?

# 139 THE COURT:

You can answer it.

# 140 MR. BLASIER:

You can try that one.

# 141 DENNIS FUNG:

I was in charge of the evidence portion of the crime scene.

# 142 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Including?

# 143 A:

Of the collection force.

# 144 Q:

You weren't in charge of the fingerprint people?

# 145 A:

I -- to a certain extent, I would tell them when I was done with my collection, and then give them the go-ahead to start with their portion of the crime-scene processing.

# 146 Q:

They had already started before you even got there, didn't they?

# 147 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection.

# 148 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 149 DENNIS FUNG:

They had done certain portions of the crime scene.

# 150 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) What portions?

# 151 A:

I don't have a vivid memory of what portions they had started. They were working on the inside; I do remember that, and possibly the railings of the walkway.

# 152 Q:

By the way, Mr. Fung, in this entire area that you served, there wasn't a single fingerprint in blood, was there?

# 153 A:

I'm not aware of any.

# 154 Q:

The Bundy glove that was on the ground had very little blood on it, didn't it?

# 155 A:

I did not examine the Bundy glove very closely for the presence of blood. I don't remember how much blood was on it?

# 156 Q:

Didn't you see it when you got back to the lab, as well.

# 157 A:

I did see it, but I didn't take a note of how much blood was on it or -- I know that there was some blood on it, but I didn't examine it very closely?

# 158 Q:

By the way, at one point, isn't it accurate that you took the Rockingham glove, carried it from Rockingham to Bundy, and took it into the Bundy crime scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body, so that Detective Lange could compare it with the Bundy glove?

# 159 A:

That's correct.

# 160 Q:

That's a horrible technique, isn't it?

# 161 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 162 THE COURT:

On that basis, it's overruled.

# 163 MR. LAMBERT:

Argumentative and beyond the scope.

# 164 THE COURT:

Sustained as to that one.

# 165 MR. BLASIER:

Beyond the scope?

# 166 THE COURT:

No, argumentative.

# 167 MR. BLASIER:

Okay.

# 168 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is it acceptable procedure to take evidence from one bloody scene like that glove and take it to another second crime scene?

# 169 A:

If the evidence is handled in a careful manner, I don't see a problem with it.

# 170 Q:

Now, you didn't want to take that glove from Rockingham and carry it into the Bundy crime scene, did you?

# 171 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 172 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 173 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You were ordered to do that by Detective Lange, weren't you?

# 174 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 175 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 176 DENNIS FUNG:

I was requested to do so.

# 177 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) And you did?

# 178 A:

Yes, I did.

# 179 Q:

Did you ever tell him that was a bad idea?

# 180 A:

I told him that -- well, I made the conclusion in my mind that I would not take the bag -- or the glove out of the bag for him. And I felt that merely bringing the bag to the crime scene and opening it up carefully would not compromise the scene.

KEY QUOTE

# 181 Q:

Now, you could have taken the Bundy glove and taken it out to the crime scene truck and compared it there, couldn't you?

# 182 A:

That's possible, yes.

# 183 Q:

Now, isn't it accurate that there were quite a few police officers that you had seen at Rockingham in the morning, 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock, when you were there, that were also at Bundy when you got there after 10:00?

# 184 A:

Actually, there were, that I recognized, less than ten.

# 185 Q:

Let me ask you this: You made no effort, did you, to isolate the two crime scenes in the sense of not having people traipsing back and forth, did you?

# 186 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 187 THE COURT:

Sustain the objection.

# 188 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You can move evidence back and forth from one crime scene to another, even if it gets on your shoe, your clothing, your hands or anything --

# 189 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant and calls for speculation; assumes facts not in evidence.

# 190 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 191 DENNIS FUNG:

If one isn't careful, it can occur.

# 192 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any effort to isolate the Rockingham scene from the Bundy scene in terms of people going back and forth?

# 193 MR. LAMBERT:

That's been asked and answered. Same objection. Irrelevant.

# 194 THE COURT:

Did he make any attempts, sustained.

# 195 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Was there any attempt made that you're aware of to isolate the two crime scenes so that people didn't come back and forth and one to the other?

# 196 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objections.

# 197 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 198 DENNIS FUNG:

No, that was not my responsibility.

# 199 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) By the way, when you were at Rockingham in the afternoon, did you see the Akita dog at Rockingham?

Do you remember seeing the dog?

# 200 A:

There was a dog there, yes.

# 201 Q:

And it was your understanding that was the dog they had found blood on at Bundy?

# 202 A:

I don't know which dog that was. I know there was a dog at the Rockingham scene.

# 203 Q:

Did you make any effort to isolate the Rockingham scene from blood that might have been checked on items from the Bundy scene, like the dog?

# 204 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 205 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 206 DENNIS FUNG:

Can you repeat that question?

# 207 MR. BLASIER:

Sure.

# 208 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any efforts to isolate the Rockingham scene from things like blood from the Bundy -- coming from the Bundy scene by way of a dog?

# 209 A:

We tried to keep the dog away from the evidence or the fresh blood drops.

KEY QUOTE

# 210 Q:

Who was assigned to watch the dog?

# 211 A:

No one was specifically -- watched.

# 212 Q:

That's the only effort that was made to isolate -- to keep the dog from possibly tracking blood from Bundy into Rockingham?

# 213 A:

Well, there were fresh blood stains at Rockingham. And when the dog got near the stains, we shooed him around.

# 214 Q:

Your answer is yes, that was the only effort made to protect the Rockingham scene from blood that might be on the dog?

# 215 A:

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

# 216 Q:

When you were at the Bundy scene in the caged-in area -- that was, again, an area of your responsibility, correct?

# 217 A:

Yes.

# 218 Q:

Did you observe what appeared to be blood drops on Nicole Brown Simpson's back?

# 219 A:

By the time I had reached Bundy, she had already been moved or she was in the process of being moved.

# 220 Q:

Now, are you in charge of collecting evidence that might be on a body?

# 221 A:

The evidence that is on the body is the jurisdiction of the coroner.

# 222 Q:

And you're not allowed to even touch that, are you?

# 223 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

# 224 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 225 DENNIS FUNG:

Usually not.

# 226 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is there any kind of scientific principle that requires that you not have anything to do with the body, but the coroner can?

# 227 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 228 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 229 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Whose job is it to see that evidence that might be on a body is preserved?

# 230 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope.

# 231 THE COURT:

He says it's not his place.

# 232 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is it your responsibility to preserve imprint evidence that might be at a crime scene?

# 233 A:

Yes.

# 234 Q:

And tell us what imprint evidence is.

# 235 A:

Imprint evidence can be tool marks or shoe prints, tire tracks, that sort of thing.

# 236 MR. BLASIER:

Let me show you what's been marked as 40 previously.

# 237 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recognize this picture, Mr. Fung?

# 238 A:

Yes, I do.

# 239 Q:

That's a picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing at a glove?

# 240 A:

I can't identify that as Mark Fuhrman, but it is somebody pointing at the glove.

# 241 Q:

That was an area of the crime scene that you had responsibility over searching and preserving evidence?

# 242 A:

Once I arrived there, yes.

# 243 Q:

And that --

# 244 MR. BLASIER:

Can you zoom in on that post by the knit cap.

# 245 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, do you see what appears to be parallel line imprints on the post by the knit cap which I'm pointing to on the screen?

# 246 A:

I -- what was the question again?

# 247 Q:

Do you see what appears to be parallel line imprints on the post above the blood stain on the post by the knit cap?

# 248 A:

I don't see the knit cap anymore, but I do see a -- some sort of pattern on the post.

# 249 Q:

Did you make any effort at all to preserve or closely photograph that imprint?

# 250 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope.

# 251 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 252 DENNIS FUNG:

Other than general, overall, no.

# 253 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever notice it at the time?

# 254 A:

No.

# 255 Q:

Let me show you what's previously been marked as 13 -- I'm sorry, 1532.

Mr. Fung, when you arrived at the crime scene at about 10:15 on the 13th, did you observe that piece of paper in the area right between where the bodies were?

# 256 A:

I do not recall seeing that piece of paper.

# 257 Q:

It wasn't there, was it?

# 258 A:

I don't know if it was there or not. I just don't recall seeing it.

# 259 MR. BLASIER:

Well, let's zoom in on it.

# 260 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can we have some exhibit numbers, Your Honor?

# 261 MR. BLASIER:

I think I gave that, 1532.

# 262 MR. PETROCELLI:

Previous photo.

MR. P. BAKER: Previous photos was 40.

# 263 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry, 40.

# 264 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Fung, do you see what appears to be similar imprint evidence on that piece of paper?

# 265 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. No foundation; calls for speculation, calls for conclusion.

# 266 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 267 DENNIS FUNG:

Without benefit of a ruler or scale within that picture, I cannot make that determination.

# 268 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) That's one of the reasons why you collect such things as pieces of paper that has that kind of imprint evidence on it, isn't it, so that you can do those kinds of tests?

# 269 A:

That's one of the reasons, yes.

# 270 Q:

Now, you were trying to find out whether there might have been a second set of shoe prints at Bundy other than the bloody ones, weren't you?

# 271 A:

That had gone through my mind, yes.

# 272 Q:

And the area on this piece of paper that I'm indicating up in this area and along in here, those were all consistent with possible shoe imprints, aren't they.

# 273 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.

# 274 THE COURT:

You may answer if you can.

# 275 DENNIS FUNG:

Just by looking at those two patterns, I wouldn't say they were shoe prints.

# 276 Q:

That would be?

# 277 A:

In evidence.

# 278 Q:

You would definitely collect that, had you seen it, wouldn't you, Mr. Fung? It was right between the two bodies and had blood on it.

# 279 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

# 280 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 281 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did Detective Lange ever tell you that he already looked at that in the field and decided it had no evidentiary value?

# 282 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 283 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 284 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did Detective Lange ever give you any instructions with respect to that piece of paper?

# 285 A:

I don't recall him mentioning that piece of paper to me at the crime scene, no.

# 286 Q:

Is it an appropriate procedure to make an assessment at the crime scene on an item such as this, as to whether or not it has evidentiary value, just by looking at it?

# 287 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 288 THE COURT:

It's irrelevant as to this witness.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Dennis Fung

It's my testimony that I don't remember seeing or having been -- I don't remember being told about the blood on the back gate on that day, and I don't remember seeing blood on the back gate that day.

Fung walked through the back gate 'several' times over four hours in daylight without seeing or collecting what would later become a key piece of blood evidence, collected weeks later.

Dennis Fung

That's correct.

Confirms he carried the Rockingham glove back to the Bundy crime scene, stepping over Ron Goldman's body, so Detective Lange could compare it to the Bundy glove — a fundamental cross-contamination risk.

Dennis Fung

It's quite a coincidence.

Fung acknowledges that a blood sample collected from the back gate on July 3 shares item number 116 with a front gate sample he collected June 13 — the same number later used for the controversial back gate blood.

Dennis Fung

We tried to keep the dog away from the evidence or the fresh blood drops.

Fung admits the only effort to prevent the Akita — which had been found with blood at Bundy — from contaminating the Rockingham scene was shooing it away from fresh stains.

Dennis Fung

I told him that -- well, I made the conclusion in my mind that I would not take the bag -- or the glove out of the bag for him.

Reveals Fung had reservations about taking the glove to Bundy but complied with Lange's request anyway, without voicing objection.

Evidence (6)

Defendants' 67

Bundy crime scene diagram/board showing blood drop locations and distances

discussed; used to establish sequential numbering of blood drops 112-117 and proximity of item 115 to the back gate

Defendants' 2134

Photograph of stain No. 116 (front gate blood, collected June 13)

introduced and discussed; used to highlight the numbering coincidence with the July 3 back gate sample

Defendants' 40

Photograph of a person (Blasier implies Fuhrman) pointing at the Rockingham glove

discussed; used to question Fung about missed imprint evidence on a post near the knit cap

Defendants' 1532

Crime scene photograph showing a piece of paper lying between the two bodies

discussed; Blasier argued it shows shoe imprint evidence that Fung never noticed or collected

Informal

Rockingham glove (physical evidence)

discussed; Fung confirmed he transported it from Rockingham into the Bundy crime scene

Informal

Bundy back gate blood (item 116, collected July 3)

discussed; contrasted with June 13 processing to show Fung never saw or collected it on the day of the crime

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Dennis Fung

Blasier walks Fung through the sequential numbering of blood drops 112–117, then reveals that Fung broke sequence to number 116 at the front gate — demonstrating Fung never looked at the back gate even though item 115 was within 10 feet of it.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Dennis Fung

Blasier establishes that Fung carried the Rockingham glove into the active Bundy crime scene, stepping over Goldman's body, at Lange's request. Fung admits he considered it acceptable if handled carefully, and that he had the option of comparing the gloves at the crime scene truck instead.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Dennis Fung

Blasier shows a photo of a piece of paper lying between the two bodies, suggests it bears shoe imprint evidence, and establishes that Fung never noticed it, was never directed to it by Lange, and never collected it.

devastating

Robert Blasier•Dennis Fung

Blasier presses Fung on the Akita dog at Rockingham — the same dog found with blood at Bundy — and whether any effort was made to prevent it from tracking Bundy blood into Rockingham. Fung confirms no one was assigned to watch the dog and 'shooing' it from fresh stains was the only precaution.

revealing

Light Moments (1)

Dennis Fung

While being questioned under a pending objection, Fung turns to the judge and asks 'Is there an objection?' — apparently confused about whether to answer.

Credibility Attacks (4)

⚔ Dennis Fung

omission / incompetence

Blasier establishes that Fung walked through the Bundy back gate multiple times over four hours in daylight without noticing or collecting blood that would later become critical evidence (collected only on July 3, three weeks later).

⚔ Dennis Fung

prior inconsistent action / procedural failure

Blasier uses Fung's own sequential numbering system against him — the break in sequence at items 115/116 demonstrates Fung went to the front gate instead of the back gate, contrary to his claim of systematic processing.

⚔ Dennis Fung

failure to follow protocol

Blasier highlights that Fung allowed print technicians to work the scene before him, transported evidence between crime scenes, made no effort to isolate the two scenes from cross-contamination, and failed to collect a piece of paper with potential shoe imprint evidence lying between the bodies.

⚔ LAPD investigation (via Fung)

bias / deference to detectives

Blasier establishes that Fung consistently deferred to Detective Lange's direction — including carrying the glove to Bundy — rather than exercising independent criminalist judgment, and that Lange never directed Fung to examine the back gate.

Witness Demeanor

Fung frequently hedges with 'I don't remember' and 'I don't recall' rather than flat denials

Fung asks Blasier to repeat questions on multiple occasions, suggesting either difficulty following or deliberate stalling

Fung volunteers self-justifying explanations unprompted, particularly regarding the item 116 numbering sequence and the glove transport

Objections

18 objections (11 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 8122 • 288 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103