BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT?
AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?
NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?
WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT?
AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU?
BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON TO THE ISSUE OF DNA AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT. I BELIEVE YOU SAID DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE NOT A DNA PERSON?
ALL RIGHT. AND JUST SO YOU CAN MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE JURY, SID, THERE ARE VARIOUS DIFFERENT PLACES YOU CAN ROTATE THROUGH?
SEROLOGY -- IN THE SEROLOGY UNIT, THEY WILL ANALYZE BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS AND SOMETIMES TISSUE FOR GENETIC MARKERS.
WHEN I SAY THAT "YOUR LAB" DOING IT, I MEANT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY DONE IN-HOUSE BY ANALYSTS FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY. WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT?
AS OPPOSED TO COLLECTING SAMPLES THAT WOULD THEN BE SENT OUT TO OTHER LABORATORIES FOR DNA TESTING.
AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD -- PRIOR TO 1994, HAD THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT COLLECTED SAMPLES AND SENT THEM OUT TO OTHER LABORATORIES FOR DNA TESTING?
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AT ANY TIME IN 1994, HAD PEOPLE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB GIVEN A LECTURE TO YOU ON PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING?
PRIOR TO 1994, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY TRAINING ON HOW TO COLLECT SAMPLES THAT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING?
WELL, SHE WOULD BE THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PCR OR POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION METHOD IS?
I CAN'T GO INTO ANY DETAIL ON ITS -- I KNOW IT'S ONE OF THE PROCEDURES -- THERE'S TWO PROCEDURES, AND THAT'S ONE OF THEM.
AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT THE ONE THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB BEGAN SOMETIME IN 1994 TO DO IN-HOUSE?
IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PCR TESTING AND THE RFLP TESTING, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE METHODS?
WELL, YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL YOUR BRIEF LECTURE ON HOW TO COLLECT SAMPLES FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE DNA TESTING?
NOW, IN YOUR BRIEF LECTURE ABOUT COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING, DID ANYBODY EVER TELL YOU THAT THE ABILITY TO PERFORM SUCCESSFUL DNA ANALYSIS ON BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM A CRIME SCENE DEPENDS VERY MUCH ON THE KINDS OF SPECIMENS COLLECTED AND HOW THEY WERE PRESERVED?
BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE TECHNIQUE USED TO COLLECT AND DOCUMENT SUCH EVIDENCE, THE QUANTITY AND TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE PACKAGED AND HOW THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED ARE SOME OF THE CRITICAL POINTS FOR A -- FOR DNA PROGRAM? WERE YOU TOLD ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT?
BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD ANYTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF EVIDENCE IS IMPROPERLY PACKAGED, CROSS-CONTAMINATION CAN OCCUR?
WERE YOU TOLD THAT IF DNA EVIDENCE IS NOT PROPERLY PRESERVED, THAT DECOMPOSITION AND DETERIORATION MAY WELL OCCUR?
AND WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE DECOMPOSITION OR DEGRADATION OF DNA EVIDENCE CAN SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF DNA TYPING?
WERE YOU EVER SHOWN A SET OF GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION?
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAY YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN A BOOK ENTITLED GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE?
SO IN OTHER WORDS, MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU THE GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE LONG AFTER YOU COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
KEY QUOTEBY MR. SCHECK: MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU THE GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION OF DNA EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE FBI LONG AFTER YOU DID THE COLLECTION IN THIS CASE?
KEY QUOTEAND IN TERMS OF WHAT A MICROLITER OF BLOOD WOULD LOOK LIKE, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE SIZE OF A PINHEAD?
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ONE MICROLITER OF BLOOD WOULD BE ENOUGH TO DO A DNA TEST USING THE RFLP METHOD?
BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU GIVEN ANY INSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO HOW MUCH BLOOD COULD BE USED IN A SUCCESSFUL DNA TEST?
WERE YOU TOLD THAT AS LITTLE AS ONE MICROLITER OR A PINHEAD OF BLOOD COULD PRODUCE A RESULT WITH AN RFLP TEST?
WERE YOU TOLD THAT MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE COULD BE RECOVERED FROM ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND THEN USED IN A DNA TEST, BE IT PCR OR RFLP?
WERE YOU WARNED THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD ARE NOT SPREAD FROM ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE TO THE OTHER ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO SUBSEQUENT DNA TESTING?
WERE YOU INSTRUCTED THAT IF ONE JUST WET A FINGER, RUBBED IT ON A PODIUM SUCH AS THIS, THEN WIPED IT WITH A CLOTH, THAT AN EXTRACTION FROM THAT CLOTH COULD SUCCESSFULLY BE AMPLIFIED AND USED IN A DNA TEST?
BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER CELLS FROM A SMALL CUT FROM YOUR FINGER TRANSFERRED ONTO A PIECE OF EVIDENCE COULD BE A SOURCE IN A SUBSEQUENT DNA TEST FROM THE EVIDENCE YOU TOUCHED?
I AM SORRY. THE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. WERE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF CONTAMINATION, CROSS-CONTAMINATING SAMPLES WHEN COLLECTING IT FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?
NOW, YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU WEAR GLOVES AT LEAST FOR ONE PURPOSE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT ONE PURPOSE OF WEARING GLOVES DURING THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE IS FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION?
DO YOU NOT REGARD IT ALSO AS IMPORTANT TO WEAR GLOVES AS A MEASURE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF THE SAMPLES THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING?
NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION HOW YOU DECIDE WHEN TO CHANGE GLOVES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
AND YOU RECALL THAT YOU ANSWERED THAT, "WHEN THE GLOVES GET DIRTY OR I HAVE TO USE SOME OF MY INSTRUMENTS OR PERSONAL ITEMS, I WILL REMOVE THE GLOVE SO AS NOT TO CONTAMINATE MYSELF OR OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE"?
NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE GLOVES GET DIRTY AND THEN YOU REMOVE THEM, THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN SEE SOMETHING ON THE GLOVES?
AND YOU'VE RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTION THAT SAMPLES CAN BE CONTAMINATED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING THROUGH MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT ONE CANNOT SEE?
BY MR. SCHECK: HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT SAMPLES THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING CAN BE CROSS-CONTAMINATED BY MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT CANNOT BE SEEN?
HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD THAT EVIDENCE THAT IS BEING COLLECTED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING CAN BE CONTAMINATED BY OTHER CELLULAR MATERIAL THAT IS SO MINUTE, ONE CANNOT SEE OTHER THAN BLOOD?
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THERE IS NO RULE IN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING AT LAPD THAT GLOVES SHOULD BE CHANGED BETWEEN EACH SAMPLE?
AND YOU DID NOT INSTRUCT MISS MAZZOLA TO CHANGE HER GLOVES BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF EACH SAMPLE?
NOW, YOU DID RECEIVE A HANDOUT ON THE -- HOW TO COLLECT EVIDENCE, WHICH INCLUDED REFERENCES TO DNA TESTING; DID YOU NOT?
DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING A HANDOUT THAT WAS GIVEN TO CRIMINALISTS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BODY FLUIDS?
YOU WERE NEVER HANDED OUT THESE THREE PAGES WITH RESPECT TO PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BODY FLUIDS?
ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING ANY LECTURES AT ANY TIME ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE BODY FLUIDS FROM ANYONE AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB?
ALL RIGHT. AND IN THAT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, WERE YOU GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO USE CLOTH SWATCHES FOR THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS AT A CRIME SCENE?
I MEAN, YOU DID -- YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF ALL THOSE BOARDS, DID YOU NOT, THAT LAID OUT THE PROCEDURE?
AND WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THOSE BOARDS, DID YOU GO OVER THOSE PROCEDURES CAREFULLY WITH PEOPLE FROM THE CRIME LAB?
IF HE HASN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE, COUNSEL CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION I THINK IT'S 721.
YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO IS THAT -- THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED THAT HE LEARNED ORALLY, WAS INSTRUCTED ORALLY AT SOME POINT ABOUT PROCEDURES AND HE LEARNED ON THE JOB. SO ALL I'M ASKING HIM ABOUT IS WHETHER CERTAIN PROCEDURES HE WAS TOLD ABOUT ORALLY. IF HE WANTS TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THAT'S FINE. ALSO, I'M A BIT PUZZLED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE ON, BUT IT'S MY DISTINCT RECOLLECTION WE WERE HANDED AND THE COURT WAS HANDED THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT DURING THE SPLIT HEARING.
YEAH. I HAVE TO CONFESS IT DOES NOT LOOK FAMILIAR TO ME. BUT SINCE I'VE SEEN 20,000 PAGES WORTH OF STUFF IN THIS CASE --
I PROPOSE SIMPLY TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THE WAY THAT HE CLAIMS THAT HE GOT IT.
I HAVEN'T HEARD A QUESTION THAT'S DIRECT CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THAT ITEM YET. MR. GOLDBERG.
BUT THE PROCEDURE OF COUNSEL STANDING UP THERE RIGHT NEXT TO THE WITNESS GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT IS NOT PROPER.
ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, DO YOU NEED TO BE THERE FOR SOME PARTICULAR REASON? ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW HIM ANY --
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SIR, YOU SAY YOU NEVER RECEIVED A WRITTEN HANDOUT ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE BODY FLUIDS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BLOOD, RIGHT?
AND IN TERMS OF YOUR TRAINING ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE A BLOODSTAIN, PART OF IT WAS TO -- YOU WERE TOLD ORALLY BY SOMEONE TO USE A CLOTH SWATCH OR A CLOTH STRIP OR THREADS, REMOVE FROM THE SWATCH?
AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE CHOICE OF THE SIZE OF THE SWATCH DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE STAIN THAT'S TO BE COLLECTED?
AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT ONE SHOULD DAMPEN THE SWATCH WITH DISTILLED WATER AND REMOVE THE EXCESS WATER BY SHAKING IT OFF?
LET ME SHOW YOU THIS DOCUMENT, SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE EVER TOLD THAT ONE SHOULD NOT RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH.
YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO SHOWING THAT THIS WITNESS NEEDS HIS RECOLLECTION REFRESHED.
BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE TOLD YOU THAT ONE SHOULD NOT RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH?
IS IT THAT YOU DON'T -- IS IT THAT YOU HAVE NO SPECIFIC MEMORY OF EXACTLY THE INSTRUCTIONS YOU WERE GIVEN ON HOW TO PICK UP THE STAIN?
BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU REMEMBER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER ANYBODY EVER TOLD YOU NOT TO RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH?
SUSTAINED. WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, MR. FUNG, TO LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN SHOWN TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECEIVED ANY INSTRUCTION REGARDING RUBBING OF A BLOOD SAMPLE IN ITS COLLECTION?
BY MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. WERE YOU TOLD TO PLACE THE SWATCH ONCE THE STAIN HAD BEEN REMOVED, THAT TRANSFERRED STAIN INTO A PLASTIC BAG FOR TRANSPORTATION?
NOW, HAVE YOU READ ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE A PLASTIC BAG FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF WET BLOODSTAINS OR WET ITEMS?
ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL ANY SECTION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT SAYS:
"ITEMS CONTAINING WET BLOOD, SEMEN OR CHEMICAL STAINS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO DRY AT ROOM TEMPERATURE BEFORE PACKAGING, PLASTIC CONTAINERS OR PLASTIC WRAP SHALL NOT," IN ITALICS, "BE USED AS PACKAGING MATERIAL"?
ALL RIGHT. AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE EDITIONS OF HIS WORK TECHNIQUES OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
WELL, DO YOU RECALL LOOKING AT ANY SECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE?
I SAID OVERRULED. BUT AT THIS POINT, IT IS. HE HASN'T ASKED A QUESTION REGARDING THE BOOK YET. PREMATURE. PROCEED.
BY MR. SCHECK: YES. YOU SAID YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH SOME SECTIONS OF THIS BOOK, TECHNIQUES OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, SOME EDITION, CORRECT?
IT'S STILL VAGUE AT THAT POINT AS TO WHAT EDITION OF THE BOOK HE'S TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU REMEMBER READING ANY SECTION OF THE BOOK THAT CONCERNED COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE WITH WET STAINS AND PUTTING THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS?
BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A BOOK CALLED CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE BY RICHARD SAFERSTEIN?
ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU RECALL IN THIS BOOK ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PACKAGING BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS?
YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES THAT THIS WITNESS HAS READ THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF THIS BOOK.
BY MR. SCHECK: CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PAGE OF WHAT IS THE 4TH EDITION OF CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE BY RICHARD SAFERSTEIN AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT PARAGRAPH AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS BOOK CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE, WHATEVER EDITION YOU READ, IS THIS A TEXT THAT YOU CONSIDERED IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?
BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. IS THIS BOOK PART OF THE TRAINING THAT YOU UNDERWENT WHICH CAME TO BE A PART OF THE BASIS FOR WHICH -- WHICH YOU USED IN OFFERING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN THIS CASE?
BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHICH PORTIONS DID YOU RELY UPON OR DID YOU CONSIDER IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?
YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE'S OFFERED WHAT WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER AN EXPERT OPINION IN THIS CASE.
WELL, WOULD IT INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS? WOULDN'T THE THINGS THAT SAFERSTEIN SAID IN HIS BOOK WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS BE DATA THAT YOU CONSIDERED IN FORMING YOUR JUDGMENTS IN THIS CASE ABOUT HOW TO COLLECT BLOODSTAINS?
YOUR HONOR, THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS AS OPPOSED TO FINAL PACKAGING.
BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND DOESN'T SAFERSTEIN SAY THAT THE PACKAGING OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN A PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS MUST BE AVOIDED BECAUSE THE ACCUMULATION OF RESIDUAL MOISTURE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH OF BLOOD DESTROYING BACTERIA AND FUNGI?
HEARSAY UNDER 721. ALSO AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER HE'S TALKING ABOUT FINAL PACKAGING OR --
BY MR. SCHECK: PREFERABLY, EACH STAINED ARTICLE SHOULD BE PACKAGED INDIVIDUALLY IN A PAPER BAG OR WELL-VENTILATED BOX?
I AGREE WITH THAT IN THE REGARD IF FOR FINAL PACKAGING. IN THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IT'S SOUND PRACTICE TO PUT A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG TEMPORARILY?
THAT'S THE WAY I WAS TAUGHT AND TRAINED TO DO IT IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, YES.
KEY QUOTEALL RIGHT. SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC BAGS IN PACKAGING THEM?
OVERRULED. OVERRULED. COUNSEL, REMEMBER THE DIRECTION ON HOW OBJECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE. PROCEED.
WEREN'T YOU TAUGHT TO, WHEN COLLECTING THESE SWATCHES, ALL RIGHT, CONTAINING BLOOD THAT ARE WET, TO PUT THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS?
ALL RIGHT. AND ISN'T THAT CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU LEARNED FROM SAFERSTEIN AND OTHERS AS TO SOUND PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO PACKAGING WET STAINS?
MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT MR. SAFERSTEIN WROTE IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE BOOKED IN OR THEY SHOULD BE -- THEY SHOULD NOT BE PACKAGED IN PLASTIC FOR FINAL -- IN A FINAL STATE.
WELL, IS THERE ANYTHING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THIS BOOK THAT INDICATES THAT IT'S OKAY TO -- FOR YOU TO WRAP -- PACKAGE A WET BLOODSTAIN IN PLASTIC EVEN TEMPORARILY?
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, TO THE EXTENT THE BOOK ADDRESSES IT, IT SAYS DON'T PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC?
BY MR. SCHECK: SAFERSTEIN SAYS, "THE PACKAGING OF BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS MUST BE AVOIDED," TRUE?
AND IT DOESN'T SAY, "MUST BE AVOIDED IN THE LONG TERM." IT SAYS, "MUST BE AVOIDED," PERIOD, RIGHT?
THE -- MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT REGARD IS TOWARDS FINAL PACKAGING.
BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH FORENSIC SCIENCE-AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINALISTICS BY DE FOREST, GAENSSLEN AND DR. HENRY LEE?
ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT THESE GENTLEMEN SAY ABOUT PACKAGING WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC?
PROBABLY THIS EDITION. AND YOU'VE CONSIDERED THIS BOOK IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST WITH RESPECT TO TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN IN THIS CASE?
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THE SECTION YOU'VE JUST READ IS A SECTION ENTITLED "COLLECTION, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF BLOOD EVIDENCE"?
AND DO NOT THESE AUTHORS SAY THAT: "GARMENTS BEARING WET OR MOIST BLOODSTAINS SHOULD NEVER," AND THE NEVER IS IN BOLD, "BE SEALED IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS SUCH AS PLASTIC BAGS. UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, THE SPECIMENS RETAIN THEIR MOISTURE ENCOURAGING BACTERIAL GROWTH?"
NOW, MR. FUNG, THE DANGER, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, OF PACKAGING A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG IS THIS PROBLEM OF BACTERIAL GROWTH?
AND WHAT BACTERIA DOES WHEN IT BEGINS TO FORM IN LET'S SAY A WET STAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG IS, IT WILL BEGIN -- THE BACTERIA WILL BEGIN TO EAT AWAY AT THE DNA?
"DEGRADE" IN THAT SENSE MEANS THAT THE GENETIC PROTEIN OR DNA IS BROKEN DOWN BY THE -- BY THE BACTERIA.
IS IT SORT OF A SITUATION LIKE IF YOU PUT -- LIKE MILK BEING SPOILED, WHEN IT'S LEFT OUT FOR A LONG TIME, THE BACTERIA BEGINS TO FORM WITHIN IT? WOULD THAT BE AN ANALOGY THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, SOURING MILK?
OKAY. AND WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, SIR, THAT WHEN BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SUCH AS WET BLOODSTAINS BEGIN TO DEGRADE THROUGH BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION, THAT THERE IS GREATER DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATING THOSE DEGRADED SAMPLES THAN IF THE SAMPLES HAD NOT BEEN DEGRADED?
BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME START IT THIS WAY. LET US ASSUME THAT WE STARTED WITH A -- ONE OF THESE RED SWATCHES SUCH AS YOU TOOK FROM THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND THE SAMPLE WAS NOT DEGRADED. YOU WITH ME?
AND THEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION AND HANDLING, ONE GOT LET'S SAY BLOOD FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE AND ACCIDENTALLY TOUCHED OR CROSS-CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLE YOU PICKED UP. ARE YOU WITH ME?
THAT CONCEPT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE OF THE SECONDARY TRANSFER OR CROSS-CONTAMINATION.
THE SAMPLE YOU ORIGINALLY COLLECTED, LET US -- ASSUMING IT IS PUT IN A PLASTIC BAG, IT IS LEFT FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT HOURS, THEN IT IS LEFT IN A HEATED CONDITION AND THAT THAT SAMPLE IS SUBJECTED TO BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION. YOU WITH ME?
AND THAT BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION WOULD BEGIN TO EAT AWAY AT THE ORIGINAL DNA IN THAT SAMPLE?
YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT, HIS EXPERTISE AT THIS POINT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW THE HYPOTHETICAL.
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, AT SOME POINT, YOU AGREE BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION WILL DEGRADE SAMPLES?
ALL RIGHT. AND LET US ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HYPOTHETICAL THAT IF YOU LEFT A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG FOR SEVEN HOURS, THAT THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF THE ORIGINAL DNA IN THAT STAIN. ARE YOU WITH ME ON THIS?
BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT A BLOODSTAIN WHICH HAS BEEN DEGRADED THROUGH BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION, SUCH THAT SOME OR -- MOST OR ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DNA HAS BEEN DESTROYED, IS A SAMPLE THAT CAN BE EASILY CROSS-CONTAMINATED WITH ANOTHER SAMPLE?
YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE AND IT'S DISCUSSING TWO CONCEPTS. SO IT'S COMPOUND.
BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT THERE IS A GREATER DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATING SAMPLES WHEN ONE OF THOSE SAMPLES HAS BEEN DEGRADED SUCH THAT IT HAS -- THE ORIGINAL DNA IN IT HAS BEEN DESTROYED?
LET US ASSUME THAT SAMPLE A OR SWATCH A HAS BEEN DEGRADED AND THE ORIGINAL DNA HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY BACTERIA.
NOW, YOU TAKE SAMPLE B AND YOU GET SOME BLOOD OR CELLULAR MATERIAL FROM SAMPLE B ONTO SAMPLE A. DO YOU FOLLOW THAT?
ALL RIGHT. SUCH A CROSS-CONTAMINATION WITH A DEGRADED SAMPLE PRESENTS SPECIAL DANGERS, DOESN'T IT?
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WOULDN'T IT BE TRUE THAT IF ONE SAMPLE IS DEGRADED, SAMPLE A, AND IT IS TOUCHED BY SAMPLE B, THAT THE ONLY DNA WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ON SAMPLE A IS THE DNA FROM SAMPLE B?
BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, THE DEGRADATION OF SAMPLES DOES NOT PRESENT SPECIAL RISK OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?
MY UNDERSTANDING OF DEGRADATION AND -- IS THAT THE SAMPLE OR THE GENETIC MATERIAL WITHIN A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE WILL BREAK DOWN. CONTAMINATION HAS TO DO OR CROSS-CONTAMINATION HAS TO DO WITH PUTTING IN CONTACT ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER.
WELL, LET'S TRY TO MERGE THEM. IF ONE SAMPLE IS DEGRADED AND THE OTHER -- AND THAT SAMPLE IS THEN CROSS-CONTAMINATED, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THERE'S A SPECIAL DANGER THERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE A MORE COMPLETE CONTAMINATION?
SUSTAINED. THAT'S VAGUE, "SPECIAL DANGER."
COUNSEL, HE'S TESTIFIED HE HASN'T BEEN IN THE SEROLOGY SECTION, HE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH DNA.
BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD IN YOUR PROCESS OF -- IN YOUR LECTURES ON HOW TO COLLECT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO CLEAN TWEEZERS FOLLOWING EACH USE TO AVOID CROSS-CONTAMINATION?
AND THE WAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO CLEAN THE TWEEZERS WAS JUST TO TAKE DISTILLED WATER AND RUB IT ACROSS THE TWEEZERS?
TAKE A CHEM-WIPE OR COTTON APPLICATOR, WET WITH DISTILLED WATER, AND THE TWEEZERS ARE WIPED WITH EITHER THE CHEM-WIPE OR COTTON APPLICATOR UNTIL THEY ARE CLEAN. YOU SAY UNTIL THEY LOOK CLEAN?
WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THEN THAT BY SIMPLY WIPING THE TWEEZERS WITH A CHEM-WIPE AND DISTILLED -- DAMPENED WITH DISTILLED WATER, THAT THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE DNA FROM THOSE TWEEZERS? THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD?
NOW, IF YOU WERE WITH SOMEBODY THAT HAD A DEADLY VIRUS, A SERIOUS VIRUS, AND THEY JUST ATE SOMETHING WITH A SPOON AND THEN YOU JUST WIPE THAT SPOON WITH A CHEM-WIPE OF DISTILLED WATER, WOULD YOU BE RELUCTANT THEN TO USE THAT SPOON TO EAT?
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE METHODS THAT ARE USED AT DNA LABORATORIES TO CLEAN TWEEZERS OR TO CLEANSE TWEEZERS BETWEEN TOUCHING SAMPLES?
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY TAKE THOSE TWEEZERS AND THEY LITERALLY PUT THEM IN A BUNSEN BURNER OR AUTOCLAVE THEM?
BY MR. SCHECK: HAS ANYBODY AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB SUGGESTED THAT INSTEAD OF JUST CLEANING THE TWEEZERS WITH DISTILLED WATER AND CHEM-WIPES, THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO USE DISPOSABLE TWEEZERS?
NOW, HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. AS PART OF THIS INSTRUCTION THAT YOU GOT WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTING SAMPLES FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING, WERE YOU NOT INSTRUCTED TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF THE STAIN AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IF RFLP DNA ANALYSIS MAY BE NECESSARY AS A FUTURE ANALYSIS?
LAST PART OF THAT, I DON'T RECALL. BUT FOR DNA PURPOSES, I WAS TAUGHT TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF IT AS POSSIBLE.
SO WHETHER IT BE RFLP OR PCR, AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, YOUR INSTRUCTIONS WERE COLLECT AS MUCH OF THAT BLOODSTAIN AS POSSIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE DNA TESTING?
NOW, WHEN YOU COLLECTED THE BLOODSTAINS IN THIS CASE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU WERE PRESENT YOU SAY ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN MISS MAZZOLA WAS SWATCHING THE BLOODSTAINS IN THIS CASE?
AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP GOOD DOCUMENTATION OF EXACTLY HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU WERE COLLECTING WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING IT? LET ME TRY IT ANOTHER WAY. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU OR MISS MAZZOLA TOOK FOR EACH BLOODSTAIN THAT YOU COLLECTED?
AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS OF HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU PUT INTO THE PLASTIC BAG FOR ANY BLOODSTAIN COLLECTED IN THIS CASE?
AREN'T THE SWATCHES THAT CONTAIN THE BLOOD THE PHYSICAL ITEM THAT IS EVENTUALLY TAKEN TO THE LABORATORY AND ANALYZED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?
I CONSIDER THE STAIN TO BE THE EVIDENCE AND THE SWATCH IS MERELY A VEHICLE TO TRANSPORT THE STAINS.
BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DID NOT -- AFTER YOU GOT -- AFTER YOU PUT -- THE ONLY NUMBER -- THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRACK THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES WAS BY THE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
YEAH. WHEN YOU COLLECT -- WHEN YOU OR MISS MAZZOLA -- WHEN MISS MAZZOLA SWATCHED A BLOODSTAIN, SHE PUT A SERIES OF SWATCHES INTO A PLASTIC BAG?
AND THE IDENTIFYING NUMBER THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PLASTIC BAG OR THE COIN ENVELOPE WAS THE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER?
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ITEM NUMBERS WHEN YOU WERE COLLECTING THE SAMPLES ON JUNE 13TH?
BY MR. SCHECK: AS FAR AS BUNDY WAS CONCERNED, FOR EACH BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY, ALL YOU HAD WAS A PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER; IS THAT RIGHT?
YES. SO THAT'S HOW YOU KEPT TRACK OF IT. IT WAS A BAG, IT HAD A 117 ON IT AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SWATCHES WERE PUT INTO IT?
ALL RIGHT. BUT IN TERMS, WHEN YOU WALKED AWAY FROM THE SCENE, ALL YOU HAD WAS A PLASTIC BAG AND A COIN ENVELOPE WITH A PHOTO ID NUMBER ON IT?
AND YOU DID NOT WRITE DOWN ON THE PLASTIC BAG THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT WERE PUT INTO IT?
AND YOU DID NOT WRITE DOWN ON THE COIN ENVELOPE THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT WERE PUT INTO IT?
AND WHEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE LABORATORY, YOU TOLD US ABOUT A PROCEDURE WHEREBY YOU REMOVED SWATCHES FROM PLASTIC BAGS?
AND WHEN YOU REMOVED THE SWATCHES FROM THE PLASTIC BAG, YOU MADE NO NOTATION ABOUT HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE REMOVING FROM ONE OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS AND COIN ENVELOPES?
AND WHEN YOU PUT THE SWATCHES INTO A TEST TUBE, YOU MADE NO NOTES AS TO HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE PUTTING INTO ONE OF THOSE TEST TUBES?
AND WHEN YOU TOOK THE SWATCHES OUT OF THE TEST TUBE AND YOU PUT -- AND THEY WERE PUT INTO BINDLES, YOU MADE NO NOTATION OF HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE PUTTING INTO THE BINDLES?
BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS FROM THE TIME THAT THE SWATCHES WERE COLLECTED AT BUNDY TO THE TIME THAT THEY WERE PUT INTO THOSE BINDLES AS TO HOW MANY SWATCHES THERE WERE FOR EACH BLOOD DROP?
AND ISN'T IT PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN COLLECTING EVIDENCE TO MAINTAIN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY?
AND WOULDN'T YOU AGREE AS PART OF THAT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU HAD WHEN YOU FIRST COLLECTED THE STAIN AND HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU HAD WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LAB?
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS RECORDING WHEN YOU TAKE CUSTODY OF AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE AND WHEN YOU RELEASE THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE AND TO WHOM AND AT WHAT TIME.
AND INCLUDED WITHIN CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS TRYING TO MAKE A RECORD SO YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT YOU HAVE AT A LATER POINT IN TIME EXACTLY THE SAME ITEMS THAT YOU FIRST COLLECTED?
IT'S NOT PART OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY CONCEPT, TO KEEP TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES IN CASE SOME OF THEM MIGHT GET LOST?
WOULDN'T YOU CONSIDER IT IMPORTANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU FIRST COLLECTED AND THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU DELIVERED TO THE CRIMINALIST BECAUSE SOME SWATCHES COULD GET LOST?
AS LONG AS I TOOK CARE TO HANDLE THE EVIDENCE PROPERLY, I WOULDN'T -- I COULDN'T COUNT THE SWATCHES.
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF YOU COLLECTED OR MISS MAZZOLA COLLECTED SIX SWATCHES FOR ITEM 49 AND FOUR SWATCHES WERE DELIVERED TO THE CRIMINALIST, YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER TWO OF THEM WERE MISSING, WOULD YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO COUNT?
BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO COUNT, WHETHER SOMEBODY SWITCHED SWATCHES BEFORE THEY WENT TO THE ANALYST?
THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE IN OUR CUSTODY THERE AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SWITCH.
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, COULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SWATCHES THAT YOU COLLECTED ON -- IN THE MORNING AT BUNDY AND LOOK AT THEM LATER AND TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM THAT THESE WERE THE SAME SWATCHES THAT YOU ORIGINALLY COLLECTED?
THE NOTION THAT THERE IS, SIR, ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT BECAUSE EACH OF THE PIECES LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER, YOU CAN'T TELL THEM APART?
BY MR. SCHECK: BE FAIR TO SAY, MR. FUNG, THAT JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM, YOU COULDN'T TELL THE ROCKINGHAM SWATCHES FROM THE BUNDY SWATCHES?
BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU PERFORMED A PHENOL TEST, A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?
AND IN YOUR OPINION, WAS IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO DO A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
WELL, WHEN YOU SAY, "IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATOR," YOU MEAN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD YOU THAT YOU SHOULD DO IT?
ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU SAY TO HIM IT'S BETTER NOT TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, IT'S BEST TO LEAVE IT AS MUCH AS ONE CAN IN AN UNDISTURBED CONDITION SO THAT IT CAN BE LATER ANALYZED IN A PROPER SETTING BACK AT THE LABORATORY?
AND HE ASKED YOU TO DO A PHENOL TEST ON THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE, AND YOU DIDN'T SAY TO HIM -- YOU DIDN'T QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DONE?
WHEN YOU SAY A REASONABLE REQUEST, YOU DID NOT PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE CAP AT BUNDY, DID YOU?
AND WHEN YOU WERE ASKED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHY YOU DIDN'T PERFORM THE TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT AT BUNDY, YOU SAID IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE EVIDENCE AND LEAVE IT IN AS MUCH OF AN UNDISTURBED CONDITION AS POSSIBLE SO IT CAN LATER BE ANALYZED IN A PROPER SETTING BACK AT THE LABORATORY?
AND YOU BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, VALUABLE TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE LOST?
AND SO WHAT YOU TRY TO DO GENERALLY IS LEAVE IT AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE BY PACKAGING AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE LAB?
WELL, IN THIS CASE, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO JUST PUT THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE INTO A PACKAGE AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB?
I FELT THAT BY APPLYING A WET COTTON SWAB TO A STAINED AREA OF THE GLOVE, THAT IT WOULD BE MINIMALLY INVASIVE TO THE EVIDENCE.
BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO THE HAT, PUT THE SWAB ONTO THE HAT AND THEN TRY TO PERFORM A TEST ON IT?
IF DETECTIVE LANGE HAD REQUESTED ME TO DO SO, I WOULD -- I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN YOUR OPINION, IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE ITEMS AT THE SCENE BY DOING PRESUMPTIVE TESTS IN YOUR JUDGMENT AS A CRIMINALIST, BUT IF THE DETECTIVE ASKS YOU TO DO SO, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT?
BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, IF DETECTIVE LANGE WAS SAYING -- HAD ASKED YOU TO PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT, YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR JUDGMENT THAT IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE?
THEN WHY DID YOU SAY IN THE GRAND JURY WHEN ASKED WHY YOU DID NOT PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT, YOU WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOU DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE?
AND WHY DIDN'T -- BUT YOU DIDN'T TURN TO DETECTIVE LANGE AND SAY, "YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ASKING --" WITHDRAWN. YOU DIDN'T TURN TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND SAY, "DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, THIS ROCKINGHAM GLOVE. IT WOULD BE BEST TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB AND ANALYZE IT CAREFULLY"?
IT'S NOT TRUE THAT BY PERFORMING A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON THE GLOVE, THAT ANY TRACE EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DAMAGE, RELEVANT DAMAGE TO BE DONE TO THE GLOVE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DO NOT -- LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, YOU ARE NOT TO FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, YOU ARE NOT TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. I'M ADVISED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES THAT OVER THE WEEKEND AT ONE OF THE OUTINGS, SOMEBODY FROM A BAND FROM ONE OF THE UNIVERSITIES HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARDS TO THIS CASE. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. I THINK YOU WILL TAKE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH THE SOURCE OF THAT ATTEMPT AND TREAT IT ACCORDINGLY. DISREGARD IT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS, 1:30. MR. FUNG, 1:30.
SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE?
IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME.
THAT'S THE WAY I WAS TAUGHT AND TRAINED TO DO IT IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, YES.
THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE, NOT THE SWATCHES.
MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU THE GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION OF DNA EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE FBI LONG AFTER YOU DID THE COLLECTION IN THIS CASE?... YES.