Redirect examination of Gregory Matheson

📄 Redirect examination of Gregory Matheson — Wednesday, January 15, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\15\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-GREGOR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 42 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Gregory Matheson Direct examination of Dennis Fung ▶

Witness: Gregory Matheson
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 • Utterances: 354

Defense attorney P. Baker cross-examines LAPD criminalist Colin Matheson, challenging his bias toward the plaintiffs, his limited firsthand examination of the Bundy glove, and the absence of visible blood in Bronco photos. Matheson reveals he voluntarily called Lambert after hearing Fung's testimony on the radio, and admits he never closely examined the Bundy glove until September 1994, when serology tests found none of the four blood samples matched O.J. Simpson.

# 1 A:

Fine.

# 2 Q:

I got a chance to talk with you in the hallway; is that right?

# 3 A:

That's correct.

# 4 Q:

And I asked you what the substance of your testimony was going to be, correct?

# 5 A:

That's correct.

# 6 Q:

And you told me it was going to be about the glove, right?

# 7 A:

I said it was going to be about some blood and the glove.

# 8 Q:

Didn't mention the Bronco, right?

# 9 A:

Well, when I was talking about the blood, that's what I was referring to.

# 10 Q:

Kind of sprung that one on me.

# 11 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 12 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 13 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You're in the plaintiffs' camp, aren't you?

# 14 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.

# 15 MR. PETROCELLI:

I don't know what it means.

# 16 THE COURT:

You may ask that a little more up-front.

# 17 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Are you here by subpoena?

# 18 A:

I was subpoenaed originally in the case. For today I was called and requested to come back in to testify.

# 19 Q:

Who called you?

# 20 A:

The plaintiffs did.

# 21 Q:

Which one?

# 22 A:

I believe it was Mr. Lambert.

# 23 Q:

He didn't serve you with another subpoena?

# 24 A:

No.

# 25 Q:

Do you know why, when the defense tries to call a police officer, they have to resubpoena them?

# 26 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 27 THE COURT:

Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: Goes to bias.

# 28 THE COURT:

It's the wrong person you're directing that question to.

# 29 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did they call you after Mr. Fung testified?

# 30 A:

Yes, they did.

# 31 Q:

They called you the day after Mr. Fung testified, didn't they?

# 32 A:

Yes. As a matter of fact, it was the morning following.

# 33 Q:

They said we have a problem, didn't they? That's what they said?

# 34 A:

I don't know if those terms were used. We talked about the debris on the glove.

# 35 Q:

Did they tell you that Mr. Fung testified it was a cut or a rip?

# 36 A:

Well, actually, I heard on the news, on my drive home, that there was some indication of that.

# 37 Q:

Did the plaintiffs tell you that? That was my question. Did they tell you that Mr. Fung sat in that seat and told the jury there was a cut or a rip on the Bundy glove?

# 38 A:

I don't know if I -- if they specifically said it to me or if, during the course of our conversation, I pointed out that it wasn't.

# 39 Q:

Just answer my question.

# 40 A:

Excuse me?

# 41 Q:

Did they tell you that?

# 42 A:

I don't remember the exact words of the conversation. We discussed it, discussed a cut or tear.

# 43 Q:

Did they read any portions of his testimony?

# 44 A:

I don't believe I was read any. I was supplied with a copy of the transcript.

# 45 Q:

Did you read it?

# 46 A:

I skimmed it; read parts, yes.

# 47 Q:

By the way, how much have you charged the plaintiffs for your work on the civil case?

# 48 A:

I am not charging anything; that's being left to the city and our discovery unit.

# 49 Q:

How much has the discovery charged the plaintiffs, as far as you know?

# 50 A:

I don't have a clue.

# 51 Q:

Have you submitted a bill?

# 52 A:

That's not the arrangement. I'm just --

# 53 Q:

You just wait until they call you and then you come running down here, right?

# 54 A:

Just --

# 55 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

# 56 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 57 A:

(Continuing.) I call or I respond to court anytime that I'm called, both for the plaintiff and the defense.

# 58 Q:

But we have to subpoena you, right?

# 59 A:

I believe that -- the last time that I was requested by the defense to appear, it was a telephone call, and I said, sure, I will respond.

# 60 Q:

You weren't served with a subpoena; is that what you're telling this jury?

# 61 A:

No. I was served with a subpoena.

# 62 Q:

Okay. Now, did they read to you where Mr. Fung told this jury, when talking about the gloves, "I did note, when I got back to the laboratory, some -- some cuts on them." Did they read that to you?

# 63 A:

I don't believe they read it. It sounds familiar from what I read in the transcript.

# 64 Q:

They never told you he said that, right?

# 65 A:

I don't remember, like I said, the exact content of the conversation.

# 66 Q:

Did they tell you that he also testified that he saw a rock or a piece of stucco embedded in the glove where a cut was? Did they tell you that?

# 67 A:

Again, I remember reading something to the effect of a rock present on the glove from the transcripts, or from the conversation.

# 68 Q:

I'm just asking you, Mr. Matheson, if they told you that. Did they tell you that?

# 69 A:

I don't remember if they specifically told me that.

# 70 Q:

You examined the glove on June 14, right?

# 71 A:

I was present when the gloves were examined; that's correct.

# 72 Q:

You examined it pretty closely, right?

# 73 A:

Like I said, I was present. I was not the primary criminalist dealing with it.

MR. P. BAKER: I'd ask the Court to have this witness answer my question.

# 74 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You examined it pretty closely, didn't you, Mr. Matheson?

# 75 A:

No.

# 76 Q:

You didn't?

# 77 A:

I was not the criminalist that was doing the examination. I was present to assist them with some decision-making on tests.

# 78 Q:

So you're not here to tell this jury there wasn't cuts on the glove you examined on the 14th, are you?

# 79 A:

I didn't examine a glove. I saw this glove there.

# 80 Q:

Did you see any cuts on it?

# 81 A:

I didn't make any notation of any, no.

# 82 Q:

You didn't look at it very closely, did you?

# 83 A:

That's correct.

# 84 Q:

You looked at it in the same manner you looked at socks, when you saw no blood on the socks, right?

# 85 Q:

You didn't see any debris on the Bundy glove when you looked at it on June 14, did you?

# 86 A:

I don't specifically remember.

# 87 Q:

Remember me asking you that question right on the bench, right outside that door? Remember me just asking you that?

# 88 A:

You asked me if I had seen debris on it before. I have seen these photographs prior to this court.

# 89 Q:

And you said you didn't see any debris on the glove, didn't you, Mr. Matheson?

# 90 A:

I'm trying to keep -- keep the times separate, exactly what we were talking about. I did not do an examination of the glove on the 14th. I was present when they were looked at. I don't specifically remember any debris.

# 91 Q:

You saw no debris on it on June 14, as far as you know, correct?

# 92 A:

I don't remember; that's correct.

# 93 Q:

You didn't see any stucco on it, as far as you know, on June 14, right?

# 94 A:

That's correct.

# 95 Q:

Now, you've worked with Dennis Fung for quite a while, haven't you?

# 96 A:

Actually, I have never worked along with him as a criminalist. I currently manage the section in which he works.

# 97 Q:

How long have you known Dennis Fung?

# 98 A:

Well, I started with the laboratory before him, so it would be the length of his career with the lab. I don't remember how long that is.

# 99 Q:

Over five years?

# 100 A:

Oh, definitely.

# 101 Q:

Over ten years?

# 102 A:

I believe he's been there longer than ten.

# 103 Q:

Is he an honest guy?

# 104 A:

I've never run into a situation where he lied to me; that, I know.

# 105 Q:

You don't have any reason to believe he'd lie to this jury, do you?

# 106 A:

No.

# 107 Q:

You didn't see the glove on June 13, right?

# 108 A:

June 13, no, I did not.

# 109 Q:

So if Dennis Fung told the jury he saw a cut or a rip on it on June 13, you would have no way to dispute that, would you?

# 110 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Misstates the evidence.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll read it.. If Dennis Fung testified in the following manner --

# 111 MR. PETROCELLI:

And give us a line.

MR. P. BAKER: Sure. Page 62, lines 13 through 19.

# 112 Q:

Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two exhibits, isn't it, sir?

# 113 A:

Yes it is.

# 114 Q:

And you're telling me that's not a cut?

# 115 A:

Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip. You didn't see the glove on the 13th, did you?

# 116 A:

No, I did not.

# 117 Q:

You have no reason whatsoever to believe that Mr. Fung was lying when he testified on January 8, 1996 (sic), do you?

# 118 A:

I have no reason to believe he would lie in court at all.

KEY QUOTE

# 119 Q:

And when Mr. Fung testified that he wasn't sure that glove right here was the glove he collected at the scene, you have no way of disagreeing with that, do you Mr. Matheson?

# 120 A:

I don't disagree with it, that's what he thought.

# 121 Q:

Have you no idea? You didn't see the glove on June 13, did you?

# 122 A:

Like I said, no, I did not.

# 123 Q:

So the first time you saw it was on June 14, when you didn't even really look at it, right?

# 124 A:

That's correct.

# 125 Q:

And when was the next time you saw it?

# 126 A:

I don't specifically remember. We -- the inventory that we did on June 29, I'm assuming it was pulled out at that point.

# 127 Q:

When did you examine it closely?

# 128 A:

I have never done a close examination of this glove until I did my blood removal.

KEY QUOTE

# 129 Q:

So that -- were you in this courtroom two days ago?

# 130 A:

No.

# 131 Q:

Did they ask to you look at the glove in the past days?

# 132 A:

I'm sorry. I wasn't in during court. Monday morning, prior to the Court's session, yes, we did come over and take a look at the glove.

# 133 Q:

Who's "we?"

# 134 A:

It was myself, Mr. Fung, and Mr. Lambert.

# 135 Q:

Did they pay you for that?

# 136 A:

It was being paid by the city.

# 137 Q:

The taxpayers paid you to come over here and look at the glove; is that right?

# 138 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 139 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 140 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you served with a subpoena to come over here and look at the glove?

# 141 A:

No, I was not.

# 142 Q:

They just called you up and you came over and you looked at the glove?

# 143 A:

That's right.

# 144 Q:

It's really the first time you looked at it closely, right?

# 145 A:

No. Actually, when I removed my blood samples off of it, I looked at it. At that point, I was looking for blood.

# 146 Q:

When did you lift the blood samples?

# 147 A:

Can I refer to my notes?

# 148 Q:

Sure.

# 149 A:

That would be on September 18, 1994.

# 150 Q:

That's the first time you looked at it closely, just so the record's clear, Mr. Matheson?

# 151 A:

That's the first time I did an examination of it; that's correct.

# 152 Q:

And you did the sero -- how do you pronounce it? You're better at this than I am.

# 153 A:

I did a ser -- (Laughter.)

# 154 MR. LEONARD:

No, he's not.

# 155 A:

The testing was serological. I was removing blood samples from it to do serology tests.

# 156 Q:

All right. And not one drop of blood on the Bundy glove matched O.J. Simpson, did it?

KEY QUOTE

# 157 A:

Of the four I tested, that's correct.

# 158 Q:

You never tested any more, right?

# 159 A:

That's correct.

# 160 Q:

And no one ever asked you to test it anymore, right?

# 161 A:

Not that I can recall.

# 162 Q:

And you have no knowledge of who handled the glove between the time Mr. Fung saw it, collected it on June 13, until you saw it on the morning of the 14th, right?

# 163 A:

That's correct.

# 164 Q:

And on the 14th, you didn't look at it very closely, right?

# 165 A:

That's correct.

# 166 Q:

And then you didn't -- you don't know who handled the glove from the 14th through the 29th, when you looked at it more closely, right? Or, no. September 1. I'm sorry.

# 167 A:

That's correct. It was within our control, but I don't know everybody that looked at it.

# 168 Q:

When was O.J. Simpson's reference vial taken?

# 169 MR. LAMBERT:

Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

# 170 THE COURT:

That's sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: Goes to the blood --

# 171 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 172 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) When were the victim reference vials taken?

# 173 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objection.

# 174 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 175 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, you were asked some questions about your inspection of the Bronco on September 1; is that right? I'm sorry. You didn't inspect the Bronco, right?

# 176 A:

That's correct. Just the parts that were brought to the laboratory.

# 177 Q:

You just got what they brought to you?

# 178 A:

That's correct.

# 179 Q:

What you are talking about on September 1 are the swatches that were collected on August 26, right?

# 180 A:

No.

# 181 Q:

When were they collected?

# 182 A:

September 1.

# 183 Q:

Swatches were collected on September the 1st?

# 184 A:

That's correct. That's when I collected the swatches off the stains.

# 185 Q:

Okay. The stains were collected on August 26, right?

# 186 A:

No. The items that were brought to the laboratory were collected on the 26th. The blood was not removed until September 1.

# 187 Q:

Okay. And Mr. Lambert showed you some photographs of the Bronco taken on August 10, right?

# 188 A:

That's correct.

# 189 Q:

Show you that Monday or today?

# 190 A:

I looked at them both today and some on Monday.

# 191 Q:

How much time have you spent with Mr. Lambert to prepare yourself for this testimony today?

# 192 A:

Probably a total of about two and a half hours.

# 193 Q:

Did you do that over at the Doubletree?

# 194 A:

Some was done over there this morning. A little bit was done there Monday morning, along with here. A little bit -- it was done in the laboratory.

# 195 Q:

Mr. Lambert came down to the laboratory?

# 196 A:

Yes.

# 197 Q:

And they let you into the Doubletree suite?

# 198 A:

Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: They won't let me in.

# 199 MR. PETROCELLI:

Anybody can go there, Your Honor.

# 200 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, did he show you all the photos Mr. Carmaney took on August 10?

# 201 A:

There was a pretty good stack. He did not indicate to me that this was every one of them.

# 202 Q:

Were the photos taken indoors or out of doors?

# 203 A:

Out of doors.

# 204 Q:

Was it cloudy, rainy, or bright sunshine?

# 205 A:

Appears that it was bright.

# 206 Q:

Is this a photograph -- are these a couple of the photographs he showed you?

MR. P. BAKER: I'll mark these two --

# 207 MR. LAMBERT:

Let's see them first.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. (Mr. Lambert reviews photos.)

MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to mark these next in order.

# 208 THE CLERK:

2390 and 2391. (The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2390.) (The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2391.)

# 209 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) 2390 and 2391, are those the photographs he showed you?

# 210 A:

These look familiar.

# 211 Q:

By the way, going back to the glove, did Mr. Lambert ever ask to you compare the wear of the glove in the photograph you observed, and the glove you saw in court on Monday?

# 212 A:

No, he didn't.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 2390. (Defendants' Exhibit 2390 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 213 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Pretty sunny?

# 214 A:

I'm sorry. What?

# 215 Q:

Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?

# 216 A:

I'm sorry?

# 217 Q:

Pretty sunny when that photograph was taken?

# 218 A:

It -- I see shadows. It looks like the sun was out.

# 219 Q:

2391, pretty bright?

# 220 A:

Same thing. That's correct.

# 221 Q:

Now, did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you when he showed you those photos?

# 222 A:

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

# 223 Q:

Did Mr. Lambert describe the lighting conditions to you when he showed you those photos?

# 224 A:

I believe we discussed whether or not it was outdoors. And you could see from the photos that it was bright.

# 225 Q:

Now, did you talk to Mr. Carmaney about the photos he took?

# 226 A:

No, I didn't.

# 227 Q:

Did you ask him if he saw any blood when he took that photograph on the console?

# 228 A:

No, I didn't.

# 229 Q:

Now, I want to look at 14 -- show you 1420, before I throw it up on the Elmo. (Witness reviews Exhibit 1420 with a magnifying glass.)

# 230 A:

Okay.

# 231 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) See any blood on the front of that console, where item No. 303 was collected, sir?

# 232 A:

No, I do not.

# 233 Q:

When was item 303 collected?

# 234 A:

That would have been on September 1, 1994.

# 235 Q:

About three weeks after this photograph was taken?

# 236 A:

Approximately, yes.

# 237 Q:

Now, I want to show you -- it's actually page 2 of 1420.

# 238 MR. LAMBERT:

What is it, Phil?

MR. P. BAKER: You want me to show it to you, too?

# 239 MR. LAMBERT:

What is it?

MR. P. BAKER: It's a photo I showed to the jury, page 2 of 1420.

# 240 MR. LEONARD:

For the record, can we make sure we've got the right exhibit?

MR. P. BAKER: He is presently looking at page 2 of 1420. 1420, page 1, is on the screen.

# 241 MR. BAKER:

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

# 242 MR. LEONARD:

It was a test.

# 243 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You got it in mind, Mr. Matheson?

# 244 A:

Yes.

# 245 Q:

See the blood stain where item 380 -- strike that -- where 303 was collected?

# 246 A:

Can I refer to my notes?

# 247 Q:

Sure.

# 248 MR. BAKER:

Sure.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry?

# 249 GREGORY MATHESON:

Thank you.

# 250 A:

303 was collected from this stain on the console lid, on the right-hand side.

# 251 Q:

Okay. And that's about where 306 was collected?

# 252 A:

306 actually, I believe, was either a hair or fiber that was down in the lower part here. (Indicating.)

# 253 Q:

303 is the blood stain, for the record, referring to the mid portion of the console. Am I right, Mr. Matheson?

# 254 A:

That is correct.

# 255 Q:

That photograph -- was that photograph shown to you?

# 256 A:

I believe I've seen it. I don't know if it was shown to me recently or if it was during my many times looking at photographs of this case.

# 257 Q:

This photograph was taken on August 26. You're aware of that, right?

# 258 A:

Not specifically, no. But I have no reason to dispute it.

# 259 Q:

That's about two weeks after the other photograph I just showed you, 1420 page 1?

# 260 A:

That's correct, if that's the right date on it.

# 261 Q:

Just one final area. You are going to be on the stand longer than Kato. I show you that photo. (Witness reviews a photograph.)

MR. P. BAKER: Actually, this one is better. Let me show you this one. What number is this, 2380?

# 262 MR. LAMBERT:

It's on the back of it.

# 263 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Referring to 2380.

# 264 A:

Okay.

# 265 Q:

You're aware that blood was collected from the door sill of the '94 Ford Bronco?

# 266 A:

I'm aware of it, yes.

# 267 Q:

You're also aware that you could not -- and the blood was collected in this area; is that correct?

# 268 A:

Actually, I don't know the specific spot. If we have some documentation, I can refer to that. I was not involved --

# 269 Q:

Do you have documentation?

# 270 A:

Not as far as that stain goes, no.

# 271 Q:

Are you aware that you couldn't see that area when the door is closed?

# 272 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

# 273 THE COURT:

Just a minute. (The Court reviews realtime screen.)

MR. P. BAKER: Sure.

# 274 THE COURT:

Sustained. It's beyond the scope of this witness's examination of the exhibit.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I've got one more brief area. I'd like to take the lunch recess now, if that's possible.

# 275 THE COURT:

You may. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. 1:30. (At 11:59

A.M., luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1997 1:30 PM. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (PER COVER PAGE) (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions for Mr. Matheson. I'm sorry. (Laughter.)

# 276 MR. LAMBERT:

Just a couple questions, Your Honor. It's no surprise, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 277 Q:

Mr. Matheson, you were asked on cross-examination in some of the photographs, some of which you could see the blood, some of which you couldn't see the blood. Is it common in your experience to not always be able to see blood in these photographs

MR. P. BAKER: No foundation. He's not an expert in this.

# 278 THE COURT:

Lay some foundation.

# 279 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, how often have you seen photographs of blood evidence as part of your duties as a criminalist?

# 280 A:

I can't give you an exact number. It's easily in excess of 100 times.

# 281 Q:

Are photographs taken whenever blood evidence is collected?

# 282 A:

Yes. Photos are taken whenever evidence is collected of anything.

# 283 Q:

And you then sometimes called upon to review those photographs?

# 284 A:

That's correct.

# 285 Q:

Is that part of your duties as a criminalist?

# 286 A:

When I was a supervisor criminalist. It isn't as much now.

# 287 Q:

Now that you're a supervisor?

# 288 A:

Now that I'm the assistant director I don't get as directly involved in the case work, but I do occasionally still review photos.

# 289 Q:

When photographs were taken of blood evidence at -- when it's being collected, do the photographs always depict the evidence?

MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.

# 290 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 291 A:

Not always, no.

# 292 Q:

Can you explain to the jury why the blood shows up in some photographs and not other in others?

MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.

# 293 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 294 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) In this case, Mr. Matheson, you can see the blood in some of the photographs, you can see it real clearly in other photographs, and there are some photographs where you can't see the blood where you know it was there because you later checked them?

MR. P. BAKER: Objection, lack of foundation.

# 295 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 296 A:

Yes, that's true.

# 297 Q:

Now, you were also asked some questions about why you're here today. Would you explain to the jury whether I contacted you or you contacted me after Mr. Fung's testimony last week?

# 298 A:

Yes. After leaving work, I believe it was on Wednesday, driving home I was listening to the news, and through the media, heard some of the comments, or their opinion of some of the comments that were made in court, and I believed that I knew exactly what Mr. Fung was testifying to; the stain -- the debris or -- excuse me, not the stain, but the debris or the possible hole that was there, because it was an issue that I dealt with during investigation of the criminal case back in, I think, late October of 1994. When I got home --

MR. P. BAKER: This is nonresponsive, Judge. He's speculating as to Mr. Fung.

# 299 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 300 A:

Upon arriving home I called your office and left a message on your machine to contact me the next day regarding this issue.

KEY QUOTE

# 301 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And the work that you had done back in October of 1994, did you say it was?

# 302 A:

Yes.

# 303 Q:

Yeah. Was that in regard to this same photograph that we've been talking about here today?

# 304 A:

Some of the same photographs, yes. It was the same issue of a possible hole in one of the gloves that appears in the photograph.

# 305 Q:

And what determination did you make back in October of 1994?

# 306 A:

That it was not a hole, that it was in fact some debris sitting on the surface of the glove.

# 307 Q:

Was Mr. Fung involved at all in those discussions back in October of '94.

MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope.

# 308 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 309 A:

Not at all.

# 310 Q:

Thank you.

# 311 MR. LAMBERT:

No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:

# 312 Q:

Mr. Fung wasn't involved in that at all?

# 313 A:

Not regarding that issue, that's correct.

# 314 Q:

He collected the glove, didn't he?

# 315 A:

Yes, he did.

# 316 Q:

You never asked him?

# 317 A:

No.

# 318 Q:

Not at all?

# 319 A:

Not that I remember, that I recall, no. It was -- he wasn't involved.

# 320 Q:

I got it. Okay.

# 321 MR. PETROCELLI:

I got it should be stricken.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll agree to that.

# 322 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Lambert asked you some questions about the console and how you'd seen blood missing in some photographs when you knew it was there, right?

# 323 A:

I don't think he specifically said console. I think he mentioned in the case.

# 324 Q:

You never got in the Bronco, did you, Mr. Matheson?

# 325 A:

No, I never got --

# 326 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection.

# 327 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) On September 1st, you got the swatches; you didn't go look in the Bronco?

# 328 MR. LAMBERT:

Misstates the evidence. He didn't say anything about getting swatches.

# 329 THE COURT:

Lay some foundation.

MR. P. BAKER: You got the stains?

# 330 A:

Actually, I received in the laboratory, the parts of the car, the door, the console, the chairs -- seats, and I collected the stains myself, that's correct.

# 331 Q:

You never got in the Bronco.

# 332 A:

That's correct. I've never seen the Bronco.

# 333 Q:

You didn't get the console until three weeks after this picture was taken?

MR. P. BAKER: The first page of 1420.

# 334 A:

Correct. The first time I saw it was September 1.

# 335 Q:

You have no idea that there was blood on that console on August 10, 1994, right?

# 336 A:

I do believe that I know there's blood there, I have seen photographs that show it.

# 337 Q:

You've seen photographs that show the exact location of where Item 30 was collected that shows blood on that console on August 10; is that what you're telling this jury?

# 338 A:

I've seen --

# 339 Q:

Answer that question, sir.

# 340 A:

I'm sorry?

# 341 Q:

Item 30 -- you've seen a picture where it shows blood on the console where Item 30 was collected on August 10; is that what you're telling this jury?

# 342 MR. LAMBERT:

Misstates the testimony. Item 30 was checked on August 14th.

# 343 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Where Item 30 was collected. Where Item 303 was collected. You understand what I'm asking you, don't you, Mr. Matheson?

# 344 A:

I'd like you to repeat it so it's clear.

# 345 Q:

Are you telling this jury that you've seen a photograph that was taken on August 10, 1994, which shows blood in the console where Items 30 and 303 were collected; is that what you're telling this jury, yes or no?

# 346 A:

Trying to think back on all the pictures we looked at. My memory at the moment is no.

MR. P. BAKER: I've got nothing further.

# 347 MR. LAMBERT:

Nothing further. I'd like to move in Exhibits 2374 through 2389, inclusive.

# 348 THE COURT:

You may step down. * (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2374 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2375 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2376 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2377 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2378 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2379 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2380 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2381 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2382 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2383 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2384 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2385 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2386 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2387 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2388 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2389 for identification, was received in evidence.)

MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to move in 2390 and 2391.

# 349 THE COURT:

Okay. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2390 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2391 for identification, was received in evidence.)

# 350 MR. LAMBERT:

Plaintiffs call Dennis Fung, Your Honor. DENNIS FUNG, was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was previously duly sworn and testified as follows:

# 351 THE CLERK:

You have been sworn previously. Would you please state your name again for the record, you are still under oath.

# 352 GREGORY MATHESON:

Dennis Fung.

# 353 MR. LAMBERT:

Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 354 Q:

Mr. Fung, when you were here last week, Mr. Baker showed you Exhibit 2311, a photograph of the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

P. Baker

Not one drop of blood on the Bundy glove matched O.J. Simpson, did it?

Establishes that all four blood samples Matheson tested from the Bundy glove failed to match Simpson — a key defense point on the glove evidence.

Matheson

Upon arriving home I called your office and left a message on your machine to contact me the next day regarding this issue.

Matheson admits he volunteered to testify after hearing Fung's testimony on the news, undercutting Baker's narrative that plaintiffs recruited him to clean up Fung's damage.

Matheson

I have never done a close examination of this glove until I did my blood removal.

Concedes his direct knowledge of the glove's condition on June 13-14 is essentially nil — he cannot contradict Fung's observations about cuts or debris.

Matheson

I have no reason to believe he would lie in court at all.

Baker extracts an endorsement of Fung's credibility from Matheson, his own supervisor, which Baker uses to reinforce Fung's testimony about cuts on the glove.

Evidence (5)

Defendants' 2390, 2391

Photographs of the Bronco taken outdoors on August 10, 1994 — bright sunshine — showing the console area

Introduced and displayed on Elmo; used to challenge visibility of blood before collection

Plaintiffs' 1420 (pages 1 and 2)

Photographs of the Bronco console showing location of Item 303 blood stain collection

Discussed; Matheson reviews with magnifying glass; no blood visible to him in page 1

Defendants' 2380

Photograph of the Bronco door sill area where blood was collected

Shown to witness; further questioning sustained as beyond scope

Plaintiffs' 2374–2389

Series of photographs (Bronco and related evidence)

Admitted into evidence at close of examination

Informal

Bundy glove — examined by Matheson on September 18, 1994 for blood removal and serology; four samples tested, none matched Simpson

Discussed extensively; physical presence in courtroom referenced

Notable Exchanges (4)

P. Baker•Matheson

Baker presses Matheson on whether he is 'in the plaintiffs' camp,' establishing that plaintiffs called him without a subpoena after Fung's damaging testimony, while defense must resubpoena officers. Matheson partially deflects but confirms Lambert called him.

strategic

P. Baker•Matheson

Baker uses Matheson's own endorsement of Fung's honesty to lock in Fung's trial testimony about cuts/rips on the Bundy glove — since Matheson never closely examined it on June 13 or 14, he cannot contradict Fung.

revealing

P. Baker•Matheson

Baker forces Matheson to admit he has no photograph showing blood on the Bronco console at the exact collection spot on August 10 — Matheson's final answer is 'My memory at the moment is no.'

devastating

Lambert•Matheson

On redirect, Matheson explains he proactively called Lambert after hearing news coverage of Fung's testimony, and that back in October 1994 he had already determined the apparent glove 'hole' was debris, not a hole — work Fung was not involved in.

rehabilitative

Light Moments (6)

P. Baker

Baker to Matheson: 'You just wait until they call you and then you come running down here, right?' — objection overruled, laughter implied in the delivery.

P. Baker

Baker announces he has no further questions for Matheson — after the lunch recess — then immediately says 'I'm sorry.' Laughter in the courtroom.

P. Baker

Baker jokes 'They won't let me in' when Matheson confirms he met with Lambert at the Doubletree hotel suite. Petrocelli fires back 'Anybody can go there, Your Honor.'

P. Baker / Leonard

Baker fumbles the pronunciation of 'serological,' admits Matheson is better at it; Leonard quips 'No, he's not.' Laughter.

R. Baker

Baker Sr. says 'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree' when Baker Jr. (P. Baker) makes a mistake with exhibits; Leonard: 'It was a test.'

P. Baker

Baker to Matheson: 'You are going to be on the stand longer than Kato.' — while handing him a photograph.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Matheson

bias — voluntary cooperation with plaintiffs

Baker establishes that plaintiffs called Matheson (without subpoena) the morning after Fung's damaging testimony, framing him as a plaintiff ally who 'comes running' on a phone call while defense must formally resubpoena.

⚔ Matheson

limited personal knowledge

Baker establishes Matheson never closely examined the Bundy glove on June 13 or 14, did not note debris or cuts, and cannot contradict Fung's direct observations — undermining the whole purpose of his testimony.

⚔ Matheson

prior inconsistent statement / hallway admission

Baker references a hallway conversation where Matheson said his testimony would be about 'the glove,' not the Bronco, implying Matheson's scope expanded at plaintiffs' direction after Fung's testimony.

Witness Demeanor

(Laughter) — at serological pronunciation exchange

(Laughter) — at Baker's 'I have no further questions. I'm sorry.'

Witness repeatedly says 'I'm sorry?' when mishearing questions — possible hearing difficulty or stalling

Objections

14 objections (8 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 8809 • 354 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103