After you testified under oath on August 23rd, 1994, Miss Mazzola, when you met with Dennis Fung, didn't he review with you his recollection as to who collected which items at Bundy and Rockingham?
And would you agree, ma'am, that his recollection of who collected which items at Rockingham and Bundy in that meeting were different and contradicted your testimony of August 23rd?
I don't know. We talked about who collected what because it seemed like it was going to be a big deal. Rather than us working as a team, they want--
Miss Mazzola, this morning, you testified that Dennis Fung collected the drops nos. 4, 5 and 6 at Rockingham; is that correct?
And isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that when you testified on August 23rd under oath, you testified that you personally collected every drop at Rockingham?
Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you testified this morning on direct examination that it is now your recollection that Mr. Fung and not you collected the drops, item nos. 4, 5 and 6; is that correct?
And just so we can be very clear as to what items 4, 5 and 6 are, may I pull out one of the exhibits?
Miss Mazzola, could you please step down from the witness stand with the Court's permission?
Miss Mazzola, would you please point out for the jury so I don't block them where drops 4, 5 and 6 are on the diagram which is People's exhibit 120?
Indicating in photograph a almost directly in front of the number 360 on the curb.
And by the way, Miss Mazzola, is no. 5 also reflected in photograph a on the driveway?
Indicating on photograph c on the same exhibit a card that is toward the rear of item no. 5 and toward the left of another card; is that correct?
Okay. Now, ma'am, this morning when you testified, you said that it was now your current recollection that items 4, 5 and 6 were collected by Dennis Fung and not by you; is that correct?
And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that--you can stay there for one minute because I'm going to come back to the board. Now, when you testified on August 23rd--by the way, when you testified on August 23rd, like this trial, it was a proceeding where you testified under oath; is that correct?
And in fact, when you testified on August 23rd of 1994, it was nearly two months after the incident, correct?
Okay. Whereas today, you're testifying almost 10 months after the incident; is that correct?
And when you testified on August 23rd under oath, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And what items of evidence did you collect, you personally collect at Rockingham during that first visit? "Answer: A red stain on the door of the Bronco and the red stains leading up the driveway to the front of the house." Were you asked that question, did you give that answer?
And in fact, Miss Mazzola, was it during the meeting you had with Dennis Fung after you testified on August 23rd where he suggested to you that he had collected some of those stains at Rockingham? Did it happen at that meeting?
Well, at that meeting that you had with Dennis Fung, didn't you and he then begin to put notations down on a pre-existing field report?
And are the items which I just referred to as the drops, the Rockingham drops if you will, are they included on that list?
And are they noted on that list in the left-hand column by either a photo number or an id number?
All right. And if you now go over to the one, two, three, four, five, six columns, there's a column that says "By"; is that correct?
And what would go in that column ordinarily would be the initials of the person who actually personally collected the item; is that correct?
If the person collecting the evidence deems it's necessary to put the initials, yes.
When you filled out this report on that day, that entire column for every single item at Rockingham was left blank; is that correct?
Now, when you had the meeting with Dennis Fung, you had a photocopy of this document with you; did you not?
And during the meeting with Dennis Fung, he expressed to you his recollection of which items he collected, correct?
Did he discuss with you and explain to you his recollection of which items he collected, Miss Mazzola?
And when he did that, he said to you that it's his recollection that he collected items 4, 5 and 6, correct, during that discussion?
Well, have you had any other discussions with Dennis Fung about which items he collected other than this one meeting that occurred after you testified under oath on August 23rd?
And it's those notes that you made when Dennis Fung spoke to you after August 23rd that you are in partly relying on today when you testify as to who collected what; is that correct?
You're not--you're not at all relying on those notes to refresh your recollection as to who collected what?
All right. Are there any documents at all in this case which identify which of you collected which items?
All right. And it shows you collecting a hat and it shows you collecting a glove, correct?
Is there any videotape that you've seen that shows which bloodstains you're collecting as opposed to Mr. Fung?
And in which videotapes are you referring to? Why don't you tell us what's--which item it shows Mr. Fung collecting.
The Bundy scene shows me collecting some of the blood, but I know that Mr. Fung also collected some of the blood at Bundy.
All right. So if there's no videotape showing Mr. Fung collecting the blood at Rockingham, are there any reports that were filled out contemporaneous to this incident where it identifies Mr. Fung as the person who collected blood drops at Rockingham?
Were there any documents filled out contemporaneous to June 13th and June 14th identifying Mr. Fung as the person who was collecting any of the drops at Rockingham?
So when you testified today, ma'am, in the absence of--I'm sorry. One last question. There's no videotapes, there's no documents. Are there any still photographs showing Mr. Fung collecting any of the blood drops at Rockingham?
So in the absence of any videotapes, photographs or documents, you're testifying today based on your independent recollection of what transpired back on June 13th; is that correct?
KEY QUOTEMa'am, are there any videotapes at all which show Mr. Fung collecting a single blood drop?
A moment ago, you said that there was no videotape of Mr. Fung collecting any blood drops; is that correct?
It shows both of us at one area where blood was collected. It shows me collecting some and it shows Mr. Fung collecting some.
Wait, wait. Miss Mazzola, let Mr. Neufeld finish asking you the question before you start answering. Mr. Neufeld, let her finish answering before you ask the next question.
Ma'am, are there any videotapes at all showing Dennis Fung collecting any of the--what has been referred to over and over in this trial as the Bundy blood drops?
Is there any videotape at all showing Dennis Fung collecting any of the blood drops that are on the walkway leading to the rear alley at Bundy?
And are there any videotapes at all showing Dennis Fung swatching any of the blood drops at Rockingham?
So now focusing on Rockingham, ma'am, there's no videotapes showing Dennis Fung collecting any blood drops there, correct?
There's no still photographs showing him collecting any blood drops there, correct?
And there's no documents that were made contemporaneous to this whole matter on June 13th or June 14th which suggest that--which shows him swatching any blood drops at Rockingham; is that correct?
And so when you testified today, this morning that it's your recollection that Dennis Fung collected items 4, 5 and 6, you're testifying based on memory; is that correct?
Not based on any document, photograph or videotape that you have seen showing him actually doing that; is that correct?
And that recollection that you now have, ma'am, is in part influenced by the meeting that you had with Dennis Fung after you testified on August 23rd; isn't that correct?
At the meeting when you testified--I'm sorry. At the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, Miss Mazzola, you said that Dennis Fung told you that it was his recollection that he collected items 4, 5 and 6, correct?
During the meeting that you had with Dennis Fung after August 23rd, didn't he tell you what his recollection was as to which items he collected at Rockingham?
Ma'am, during that discussion, did Dennis Fung tell you what his recollection was as to which blood drops he collected at Rockingham?
Well, ma'am, the last time, did anything happen--did you--I'm sorry. Since you testified August 23rd until you had this meeting with Dennis Fung, did you speak with anyone else about who collected which items at Rockingham other than Dennis Fung?
And did you review any photographs reflecting who collected which items at Rockingham between your testimony on August 23rd and the time you met with Dennis Fung?
But the still photographs don't depict, as you said a moment ago, Dennis Fung collecting anything, correct, at Rockingham?
And the last time you were asked to articulate who collected what at Rockingham then was in sworn testimony that you gave in this courtroom on August 23rd, 1994; is that correct?
And when you testified in this courtroom on August 23rd, 1994, you said that you personally collected every single one of those blood drops including the Bronco door and the drops going all the way up the driveway at Rockingham; isn't that correct?
Ma'am, when you testified on August 23rd, were you asked this question, did you give this answer?
"Question: And what items of evidence did you collect, you personally collect at Rockingham during that first visit? "Answer: A red stain on the door of the Bronco and the red stains leading up the driveway to the front of the house." Were you asked that question, did you give that answer?
And you knew, ma'am, when I asked you at that time, when I asked you what you personally collected, you took that to mean those stains that you personally with your own hands swatched, is that right, as opposed to someone else doing it?
In fact, ma'am, at that meeting with Dennis Fung--by the way, do you remember when that meeting with Dennis Fung was had?
Ma'am, you made entries on that--that--that blank sheet during that meeting with Dennis Fung, didn't you?
And the place where you made entries, ma'am, was in the column that said which item was collected by whom, correct?
And have you looked at those notes with those entries that you made at your meeting with Dennis Fung any time before you took the witness stand today to help you refresh your recollection?
Did you ever look at that column at any time prior to your testifying today to help you refresh your recollection? Didn't look at it at all?
Now, other than your meeting with Dennis Fung and your meetings with Michele Kestler, your supervisor, to discuss your involvement in this case, since August 23rd, have you had any meetings with representatives of the District Attorney's office?
Well, how many times have you met with the District Attorney's office during the last two weeks?
And during the month of April in total, how many times have you met with the District Attorney's office?
Well, I just want you to approximate, ma'am, as best you can. Might it be an additional three or four?
Okay. Now, during the month of March, did you have any meetings with any of the District Attorneys?
When you say you don't recall, are you saying that you may have met with them; you just have no recollection of the encounter?
So would it be fair to say that you may have met with the District Attorney's office during the months of November, December, January and February; but at this point in time, you just can't recall if you did and if you did, how often?
However, you know for sure that you met with them many times during the month of April; is that correct?
Well, you said, ma'am, just a moment ago that you met with them about five or six times during the last couple of weeks, right?
And you said that you met with them anywheres from two to four times during the first part of April as well; is that correct?
So that could be as many as 10 times just in the month of April alone; is that correct?
Now, you mentioned that some of the sessions may have been on the telephone. How long was the longest session at the District Attorney's office?
Well, did you ever spend an entire day here looking at videotapes and talking to the District Attorneys about your involvement in this case?
And at those sessions which lasted approximately five hours, those two or three sessions, how many different Prosecutors were with you?
It wasn't a solid four or five hours. It was on and off while sometimes watching videos. I don't recall who was with me or how many.
Okay. Well, I take it if you don't recall how many people were with you, it was at least more than one Prosecutor there with you?
Well, when there was sometimes more than one, was there as many as three or four?
So you're saying the most that you ever had at any of these five-hour sessions was two Prosecutors?
Okay. Were any of the other District Attorneys who you see in this room present during any of those sessions?
But you don't have any recollection of any of those assistant Deputy District Attorneys prepping you for your testimony?
Did they at any time--did any of these District Attorneys at any time take you into a courtroom?
Now, ma'am, other than the notes that you described before that were made on June 13th and June 14th that you've reviewed in connection with this case, have you made entries onto any other notes at all or those notes to help you testify today?
Other than try to condense some of the information so it would be easier to find, no.
And those notes were made both on the Rockingham evidence collection sheets and the Bundy evidence collection sheets?
Ma'am, during any of these sessions--by the way, when was the most recent session that you had with the District Attorneys?
And during any of the sessions that you had with the District Attorneys, did they review with you any of the issues that came up during Mr. Fung's testimony?
During those meetings with the District Attorney's office, did either Mr. Goldberg or anybody else in that office tell you that there were certain problems with Mr. Fung's testimony?
Now, ma'am, would you agree that crime scene processing is a specialized discipline requiring classroom and on-the-job training in order to be proficient?
And would you agree, ma'am, that one of the things you must learn is to recognize and identify potential evidence?
And it's essential to properly collect and properly package the evidence; is that correct?
And would you also agree, ma'am, that it's imperative that you establish and maintain the chain of custody on each item?
And that's critically important, is it not, in order to demonstrate that any particular item of evidence all along as it passes from person to person or from laboratory to laboratory remains the same item?
And it's also critical, ma'am, is it not to insure that the integrity of each particular item has not been compromised?
It's combination of terms "Critical" and "Integrity." Why don't you define--have her define those terms.
Well, would you agree, ma'am, that part of maintaining that chain of custody and getting it right is to insure that the item hasn't been tampered with?
And would you agree, ma'am, that another aspect of that maintaining the chain of custody is to insure that the item hasn't been contaminated?
Now, on direct examination, you were giving us some background as to your previous employment; is that correct?
I think you mentioned that your first job out of college was with the Kern County D.A.'s office?
And your next job after that temp position with the Kern County D.A.'s office was in the private sector. You were working with a private laboratory, right?
The laboratory I worked with contracted work from various law enforcement agencies in the area.
But you were not going out and actually involved in the collection of any evidence when you had that job?
Excuse me. Mr. Neufeld, let me--forgive me for interrupting you. Let me see counsel without the reporter. Let me see Mr. Cochran, Mr. Darden, Miss Clark and Mr. Douglas.
All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Neufeld, you were about to get into LAPD employment.
Notwithstanding the fact, ma'am, that when you joined the LAPD in January of 1994 as a criminalist I, as of June 13th, 1994, you were still a trainee, weren't you?
And on January 23rd, you had no prior experience doing crime scene collection; is that right?
As of January 24th though, you still had no experience doing any crime scene collection; is that correct?
So with respect to crime scene collection, even though you are a criminalist I as of January 24th, 1994, weren't you in training in crime scene collection as late as June 13th, 1994?
In--a trainee in the technical aspects, no. A trainee in the discretionary viewing of the crime scene, yes.
I'll object to this, your Honor. It's not inconsistent. I would ask to approach.
All right. Let me see the transcript, please. Miss Robertson, I need the transcript.
Page 689 beginning with line--I am sorry. Beginning with line 7. "Question by Mr. Neufeld: And when did you commence your training in crime scene collection? "Answer: Exact day, I'm not sure. "Question: Approximate date. "Answer: Approximately a month after I began working in the lab. "Question: Maybe some time around the beginning of March 1994? "Answer: Sometime, February I believe. "And what did that training entail? "Answer: I went out to crime scenes with more experienced criminalists and assisted them and also learned the different techniques that they employ. "And I take it currently as of right now today, you are still a trainee in crime scene collection; is that correct? "I would go out as a Criminalist III to a crime scene. So yes, I guess you could classify me as a crime scene trainee."
It's not inconsistent. She's saying that she as a trainee in the mental process.
I agree with you that is not directly inconsistent. Ask her another question, set that up. But you're sort of delaying the inevitable. The question was not appropriately phrased.
Miss Mazzola, does the LAPD SID Bureau have a probationary period for their employees?
So you were a probationary employee as of the time that you did the collection in this case; is that correct?
It wouldn't be fair to say, ma'am, that as of June 13th, 1994, that one would classify you as a crime scene trainee?
Ma'am, at the hearing on August 23rd, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?
"Question: And when did you commence your training in crime scene collection? "Answer: Exact date, I'm not sure. "Question: Well, the approximate date. "Answer: Approximately a month after I began working at the lab. "Question: That would be sometime around the beginning of March 1994? "Answer: Sometime February I believe. "Question: And what did that training entail? "Answer: I went out to the crime scenes with more experienced criminalists and assisted them and also learned the different techniques that they employ. "Question: And I take it currently, as of right now, today, you are still a trainee in crime scene collection; is that correct? "Answer: I would go out with the Criminalist III to a crime scene. So, yes, I guess you would classify me as a crime scene trainee. "Question: And how long will that status continue before you are no longer a trainee? "Answer: I believe it is for one year." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers on August 23rd at that hearing?
And when you gave that testimony on August 23rd, you were testifying truthfully; is that correct?
And would you agree that prior to your joining the LAPD, you had absolutely no prior experience with crime scene processing? Is that right?
And when you joined the LAPD in January of 1994, you were given a full-time assignment to a particular unit; is that correct?
And it is the purpose of LAPD to assign you to a particular unit so you can develop your skills in that area; is that right?
And would it be fair to say that the SID criminalists have many different units and many different disciplines?
And one of these disciplines would be--I think you referred to yours as toxicology; is that right?
All right. And there's another unit which is called crime scene processing; is that correct?
Now, you weren't assigned to crime scene processing when you joined the LAPD in January of 1994; isn't that right?
But there are other people at SID who were assigned full-time to processing crime scenes; isn't that correct?
Well, other than the people who take their turns on rotation, isn't it true that there are at least two people who are full-time processing crime scenes as part of the field unit?
Now, you also mentioned, ma'am, that you took--that you're a member of the California Association of Criminalists?
And have you ever taken any courses from the California criminalistics institute?
You haven't taken any courses in crime scene processing outside the LAPD, have you?
Now, you mentioned also on direct examination that you attended this thing called the mini academy; is that right?
In January 1994. Now, it's not really an academy in the formal sense of the word, is it, ma'am?
In fact, what you are talking about, this mini academy, is really employees of the SID getting together once a week to hear lectures, isn't that right, on various topics?
And there are no books that are actually distributed to the people who attend this mini academy; isn't that correct?
In fact, this mini academy is given in the same room that houses your kitchen, your cafeteria; isn't that right?
Now, have you heard of the California Association of Criminalists, certificate of professional competency?
Well, have you heard of the American board of criminalists, certificate of professional competency?
Have you been awarded certificate of professional competency as a criminalist by any entity in America?
Now, you said that on the morning of June 13th, you received a phone call because you were the next in rotation; is that right, Miss Mazzola?
And whenever there was a major crime scene such as this one, is it SID's goal to have two criminalists work the scene? Is that their goal?
I am not sure what their goal is. All I know is, I was on call and I was assigned with a Crim III.
And you said that other than yourself, you're not sure whether there are two full-time criminalists who are assigned to the field unit to handle crime scene processing?
During the day is when the field units takes the calls. The criminalists on rotation are assigned to cover the nights and the weekends.
All right. But during the day, even back on June--in June of 1994, there was a special unit and it was staffed by two full-time criminalists, correct, to handle crime scene processing?
Well, ma'am, are you aware that the members of the crime scene unit, full-time members of the crime scene unit who handle the calls on weekdays are all people who have a lot more experience than you have?
And are you aware that SID often sends out two experienced criminalists to major homicide crime scenes?
Did he say anything at all other than it was a crime scene involving a double homicide?
By the way, before you got to Rockingham, in fact, when you got to SID, did you learn any more information about this crime scene?
All you knew at that point was, it was a crime scene involving a double homicide, nothing more?
Show you what's been previously marked as Defense exhibit number 1107 and ask you--well, actually it's easier on the screen. Is that the document you filled out?
And on that document, that's where you said that under Officer in Charge, you put in your name; is that correct?
So just so I understand it, before you arrived at Rockingham, it was your understanding that you were going to be the Officer in Charge at a double homicide; is that correct?
My name is under Officer in Charge because I was the criminalist on call at the time.
Ma'am, didn't you say that a decision was made after you got to Rockingham that you would no longer be the Officer in Charge? Is that correct? Didn't you testify to that on direct examination?
Well, if a decision was made after you got to Rockingham that you would no longer be the Officer in Charge, then isn't it correct that before you got to Rockingham, you were considered the Officer in Charge? Isn't that right?
Says who is the Officer in Charge, and then there's another line that says the name of the assistant.
You didn't like cross out "OIC" when you were in the van and write in "Not really" or something like that before you put in your name?
Well, when you wrote in your name next to "OIC", you knew that it meant Officer in Charge, correct?
And you were identifying yourself as the Officer in Charge on a double homicide; is that correct?
When you arrived at Rockingham, the first thing that happened is that the detectives briefed you on this situation?
Well, you arrived in your truck, you got out, and where was the first place that you went to?
When you say the front courtyard area, you mean immediately in front of Mr. Simpson's front door?
Well, at this point in time, you had only filled out one form, correct, the cover sheet of the crime scene investigation; isn't that right?
And now, during these several minutes, you've having a discussion or you're listening to a discussion between Dennis Fung and the detectives at the scene; is that right?
And at that point, those detectives gave you an idea of what items they wanted you to collect in that discussion during those five minutes?
You said they told Mr. Fung and then he came back and told you. You didn't actually get into this little discussion that Fung was having with the detectives?
Your Honor, I make a motion to strike that part of the witness' testimony. No personal knowledge.
Is the reason that you did not participate in that initial discussion with detectives is because you and he already made a decision that he would in fact be the Officer in Charge now instead of you?
That and he seemed to be able to communicate more with the detectives. I was standing off in the background sort of listening, but he was the one that was doing the talking with the detectives.
And you said in addition to that, at the beginning of this discussion, he informed you of his decision that he would now be the Officer in Charge instead of you?
Now, after this discussion and after Dennis Fung told you that he was going to be the Officer in Charge, you then went over and looked at certain items of evidence?
And is it at that moment that you then filled out the crime scene investigation sheet for the Bronco?
A red stain on the door of the Bronco and the red stains leading up the driveway to the front of the house.
In crime scene techniques, no. A trainee in the discretionary viewing of the crime scene, yes.
So in the absence of any videotapes, photographs or documents, you're testifying today based on your independent recollection of what transpired back on June 13th; is that correct?
Maybe five or six.
This morning.