Thank you, counsel. Mr. Goldberg, you may resume.

Thank you.

Sir, why is it your practice when you're collecting stains such as in the Bronco to take representative samples and not collect everything?

That is the way I was trained to do my crime scene analysis or investigations. We collect the best stains that we feel are appropriate for analysis and it would be almost impossible to collect every stain and not bog down the entire system.

Okay. Your Honor, at this time, I would like to refer back to our Bronco board if we may and ask the witness some questions about that.

Now, sir--

All right. This is People's exhibit which? Is this 26?

Yeah.

I believe it's 172.

All right. Proceed, Mr. Fairtlough.

It's 172. And I would like to mark a vehicle search checklist--

All right. That will be People's 200.

--for--actually it's entitled vehicle search notes.

Vehicle search notes? How many pages, Mr. Goldberg?

This is six pages.

Six pages? Thank you.

Mr. Scheck, you're familiar with that?

No. Your Honor, may we approach?

All right. Without the Court reporter. Mr. Goldberg.

All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

Sir, directing your attention to the exhibit that we've put up here--

All right. This is People's what, Mr. Goldberg?

This is People's 172--

All right.

--for identification.

Sir, directing your attention to the photograph that has the call out lines 31 and 30 on it--

Yes.

--does that depict the way that the console looked when you saw it--

Yes.

--on the 14th?

Yes, it does.

And was it--was it possible for you to see the area where stain 305 is located when you saw it on the 14th?

I don't recall if I was able to see that area or not that day.

Is the way that the console is situated such that it would be difficult for you to see that stain?

Objection. Leading.

Overruled.

Yes.

Why is that?

The--well, the stain is in a lower position. It's towards the back on a corner.

Now, do the various stains that are depicted on this exhibit represent every single stain that was in the Bronco that you saw on the 14th?

No.

These are just a selected portion of the stains?

Yes.

Thank you.

Maybe we can just move the board down so that the jurors can look at the photo that has 31 and 30 and also the photo that has 305 in it.

Yes.

All right. Mr. Fairtlough, after you finish with that, would you briefly exhibit it to our audience. Mr. Goldberg.

All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Goldberg. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.

And the stains that you looked at for Miss Clark in July, were those visible from the exterior?

One I remember was visible from the exterior. Some of the others that we saw today were not.

Okay. But at least one was?

Yes.

Now, I wanted to ask you a couple questions about trace evidence or transfer evidence. And can you start by telling us what transfer evidence is?

Transfer evidence is evidence that is exchanged between one surface to another. When they come in contact with one another, one will leave, in theory anyway, trace evidence on the other and the other will leave the trace evidence on the one.

Now, can transfer evidence occur without direct contact?

It can occur, but it's rare.

Generally speaking?

Generally speaking.

Now, suppose hypothetically that the Coroner's--back at the Bundy crime scene, the Coroner's white sheet was placed down over the blanket that had been on Nicole and that on top of that, there was a plastic sheet that was put down and that that occurred before Ron Goldman was put on the plastic sheet. Would you expect, given that hypothetical, there to be any transfer evidence from the blanket to Ron Goldman?

No.

And is that because they weren't in direct contact?

That's correct.

Now, if hypothetically there were saliva from the Defendant that had been dried on the white blanket, could that saliva somehow float down the entire crime scene and hit the red gate and turn red?

No.

All right. Would you expect that that saliva or any biological material would contaminate the stains that you and Miss Mazzola collected along the trail?

Given your hypothetical, no.

And is there any scientific explanation as to how it conceivably could contaminate the trail stains--

Calls for speculation.

But not the substrate controls or the areas from which the substrate controls were taken?

No foundation. Beyond the witness' expertise.

Sustained.

Sir, what is the purpose of the substrate controls again?

Substrate control is mainly used to detect if there is some sort of contamination present on the substrate. It's also used to test the or detect whether our instruments and materials we're using to collect the samples are clean and not contaminated.

Okay. And in the case of the items along the trail, did you or Miss Mazzola take the substrate controls from an area that was immediately next to the stain itself?

Yes.

Now, when you saw that one thing substrate controls can help you out with is looking for contamination, what do you mean by contamination?

Contamination in that regard would be something present that would affect the conclusions of an analysis.

In other words, in the case of biological evidence, some other biological material?

Yes.

All right. Now, of the 500 or so crime scenes that you've processed over your career or investigated over your career, approximately what percentage would you say were done with criminalist I's?

Maybe 20 percent.

Have you found there to be any problem with LAPD using criminalist I's at crime scenes?

No.

Now, in the area of crime scene processing, are the ideals as contained in the forensic text and elsewhere ever met?

And in coming to that conclusion, did you also consider the views of Dr. De Forest, Gaenssler and Lee in their book forensic science-an introduction to criminalistics?

Yes.

Is there any single right way to process a crime scene or do something such as collecting stains?

There are basic principles that one follows, but there's no one correct way to do--to process a crime scene.

And did you also consider their text forensic science-an introduction to criminalistics in rendering that opinion?

Yes.

Counsel, directing your attention to page 415, and I would like to approach the witness if I might just to show him what I'm going to look at.

You may. Mr. Scheck, do you have the passage?

I have the copy, but it's the edition that's the problem.

And, sir, did they write in their book that there are no hard and fast rules for successful--excuse me. Let me start one sentence earlier. "Throughout this book, we have attempted to point out that every crime scene is unique and that there is no single right way to process the crime scenes. Each scene must be evaluated individually. There are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing." Did you consider that?

Yes.

And did you also consider their statement: "Of course perfection in this or any other human endeavor is never achieved. It is probable that no crime scene has ever been processed in such a way that hindsight would not allow someone else to criticize the work at a later date." Did you consider that?

Yes.

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I do.

Now, with respect to the work that you and criminalist Mazzola performed at Rockingham, did you or did she do anything in your presence that could cause the Defendant's blood to appear on the items of evidence that you collected on the trail that went from the Bronco to the door or back?

Your Honor, object to the form of that question.

It's compound.

Did you do anything, sir, or criminalist Mazzola in your presence do anything that could cause the Defendant's blood to be on that trail?

Object also because it's calling for this witness' conclusions about evidence without no foundation.

It's still compound.

I'll break it down.

Did you do anything?

No.

Did criminalist Mazzola do anything in your presence?

Objection.

Overruled.

Do anything about what?

Overruled.

In reference to the--

Overruled.

Question you sustained an objection?

Overruled.

Did criminalist Mazzola do anything in your presence to cause--that could cause the Defendant's blood to show up on that trail?

In your presence.

I think I said that.

Yes.

No.

And, sir, did you do anything that could have caused the Defendant's blood to show up in the Bronco?

No.

Did you do anything which could have caused Nicole Simpson's blood to show up in the Bronco?

No.

Or Ron Goldman's?

No.

Did criminalist Mazzola do anything which could have caused the Defendant's blood to show up in the Bronco in your presence?

No.

Or Nicole Simpson's?

No.

Or Ron Goldman's?

No.

Did you do anything, sir, at the Bundy crime scene that could have caused the Defendant's blood to show up along the trial and on the rear gate?

No.

Or criminalist Mazzola in your presence?

No.

And, sir, did you do anything or did criminalist--did you do anything that could have caused the Defendant's hair and a fiber from the Bronco to show up on the knit cap?

No.

Did criminalist Mazzola do anything to cause that in your presence?

Your Honor, move to strike all of this, last two questions.

On what basis?

No foundation for this witness as to any of this.

Sidebar.

First of all, with respect to these questions, they are never going to put on evidence that it is a fiber from the Bronco or that it is the Defendant's hair just as they're never going to put on evidence that it is the Defendant's blood. We know that scientifically that cannot be done and they're going to put on, with respect to the DNA, statistical evidence. So it's the same thing with respect to all those blood questions, which was the basis of my objection when I was talking about foundation and that it was improper, this whole line of questioning, and would ask for a cautionary instruction in this regard with respect to these fibers and hairs because there's been nothing brought out in the record at this point with respect to any results of these tests.

So I think that this whole line of redirect examination is beyond the scope of the--obviously the cross-examination and is a deliberate attempt to put in this symbolistic and misleading test results and testimony about fiber evidence that is improper. It is exactly the same technique that Miss Clark was using with Detective Lange with respect to the questions about DNA tests to show that it's her blood under the nails. It was the subject of the objections that we gave to this Court. And I think that the Court's ruling--you indicated that they could use the word "Match," but only associated by statistics. That's exactly what Miss Clark did in terms of eliciting statements from the DNA expert in that transcript that was sent to your Honor where she was essentially pushing the expert to say this was the blood of our client.

Mr. Goldberg.

This is apples and oranges. I haven't asked him anything about test results. He's not testifying to test results. He can't testify to test results. But he was asked extensively questions about contamination and about how the Defendant's hair could conceivably have showed up on various items and how Bronco fibers could show up on various items at length. I've only touched on it for a few minutes. He was asked questions about hypotheticals, that if the Defendant had laid on the sheet, couldn't he have transported Bronco fibers there, couldn't he have transferred hair fibers and couldn't those hair fibers have come out on the knit cap. All my questions go to not the issue of test results, but the issue of crime scene processing, of contamination.

How much more do you have?

That was basically it. I was going to ask about one more question.

Your Honor, what's the one more question?

What's the one more question?

The socks, whether he did anything--criminalist Mazzola did anything in his presence to look--

Why don't you be a little more clear on this question. Why don't you ask is there anything in the manner in which you collected this item that could have caused it to be contaminated period.

Your Honor?

All right.

Your Honor?

Yes.

I would ask--

Your Honor, I would ask that the objection be sustained with respect to these series of questions and that he rephrase it in a way that the Court has just instructed with respect to contamination and not with respect to--

That's--counsel, that's the context that I understand this line of questioning to be, not that he knows anything about test results. objection is overruled.

Could you just--

Objection overruled.

--caution the jury?

Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor. I have no further questions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Well, let's take a brief break and shift gears. Ladies and gentlemen, we're just going to take a brief break because we are going to switch back into recross examination. We're going to just take a brief break for the lawyers so they can organize their exhibits and we can get started again. So let me ask you to step back in the jury room. We should be starting in about another five or 10 minutes. Mr. Fung, you may step down.