Miss Mazzola, have you seen this exhibit before called "LAPD evidence disposition summary"?
And have you seen the other LAPD evidence disposition summary which is marked Prosecution exhibit 177-C?
Did they ask you whether or not the information on the exhibits was correct after they were created?
All right. Well, Miss Mazzola, let me ask you a question: You said before that when you collected item 7, the blood drop on the Rockingham driveway--
Now, this chart here, this LAPD evidence disposition summary, says for item no. 7 "Collected," it says, "Fung and Mazzola, 6/13/94." Do you see that? If you want to step down, please do.
In fact, Miss Mazzola, on August 23rd when you were asked questions about what you collected, you understood the word "Collect" to mean that you physically swatched and collected those swatches; isn't that right?
Okay. And that is your--you understood the meaning--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You understood the word "Collect" to mean that on August 23rd, and that is the normal way that you use the word "Collect"; is it not?
Okay. So again, Miss Mazzola, on this Prosecution exhibit where it says "No. 7," "Item no. 7 Fung and Mazzola collected by," that is not correct? It was only collected by you, Miss Mazzola; isn't that right?
Now, let me show you the other LAPD evidence summary board which is 177-C. Do you remember the drops along the pathway at Bundy?
I did. Mr. Fung managed to get a little more blood off of that one spot, but I collected the majority of it.
Miss Mazzola, what--can I see what you are looking at now to refresh your recollection?
I'm just looking at this, because this is the one that was at the corner of the house, the first drop on the trail.
All right. Miss Mazzola, in the note that you are looking at right now to refresh your recollection, did you discuss with Dennis Fung, sometime after you testified on August 23rd, which items you personally collected? Was there a discussion?
And he also told you his recollection as to which items he thought he personally participated in collecting; isn't that correct?
And after that discussion you made certain entries in your field notes next to each one of the items, correct?
And the entries you made would reflect whether it was an item that you personally collected alone or whether it was one that you collected with Mr. Fung or whether it was an item that Mr. Fung collected; isn't that correct?
Okay. And is that the only discussion you've had with Dennis Fung about who collected what in this case?
Well, based on your independent recollection, was there another meeting besides this one meeting with him that you have already testified to that occurred after August 23rd?
Well, did you talk about--excuse me. Did you talk about who collected what in this case on those other occasions?
That was at a meeting you had with him shortly after you testified or sometime after you testified on August 23rd; is that right?
And as a result of that meeting you made certain entries you said on your field notes, correct?
And for some of the items that were collected you made entries indicating that items collected by both Fung and Mazzola, correct?
And when it was an item that you believe was collected by both Fung and Mazzola, would you write in the column that said "By f/m," f for Fung and m for Mazzola?
Isn't it a fact, ma'am, with respect to item 47, even after the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, you indicated that 47 was collected only by Mazzola?
All right. And you thought that was correct when you testified on August 23rd also, didn't you?
And with respect to item 48, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that item, too, weren't you?
And with respect to item 49, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that as well, weren't you?
There was one other drop on the trail that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember which one it was.
Miss Mazzola, when you met with Dennis Fung at this discussion that you had after August 23rd and you reviewed with him who collected what, didn't you put down that you, only you, Mazzola, collected item 49?
And Miss Mazzola, as respect to item no. 50, weren't you the only person who collected that?
And Miss Mazzola, as to item 52, you were the only person who collected that, too, weren't you?
So the Prosecutor's diagram where it says, for instance, on item 52 "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that is incorrect, isn't it?
And as to item 50, Miss Mazzola, where the Prosecutor's exhibit says, "Item 50 collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect, isn't it?
And with respect to item 48, Miss Mazzola, where it says, "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect in the Prosecution's exhibit, isn't it?
That one I don't know about. As I said before, there is one stain on the path that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember exactly which one.
If there is one stain that you say that you have a recollection that he helped you collect, then as to the other stains on that walkway where it says, "Fung and Mazzola" collecting it, as to other stains, that would all be incorrect; isn't that right?
So as to the other three, Miss Mazzola, this board would be incorrect; isn't that right?
And Miss Mazzola, both on August 23rd and at your discussion with Dennis Fung where you reviewed who collected what, at those two times it was your then recollection that you and you alone collected 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52; isn't that correct?
Now, Miss Mazzola, the first drop that you collected after you collected the stain on the Bronco door handle, was item no. 4; is that correct?
And then item--I'm sorry. Am I blocking? All right. And item no. 5 was the second stain you collected; is that right?
And item no. 5 is a little red stain in the driveway outside the actual gate, though; isn't that right?
And ma'am, the distance from item 4 to item 5 is approximately twelve feet; is it not?
Well, can--do you have any notes indicating the actual locations of each of these items?
Could you look at those measurement--I'm sorry. If you look at those measurements would you be able to give an approximate estimate as to the distance between stain no. 4 and stain no. 5?
Okay. And the next blood drop stain that you collected is item no. 7--I'm sorry, item number 6; is that correct?
On August 23rd, when you testified that you personally had collected the drops at the beginning of the walkway--of the driveway leading up to the house, ma'am, was one of the drops collected that day item no. 6?
Let the record indicate that the witness is pointing to what has been previously identified as a red circle indicating item 5.
Indicating the lower of the two drops that are immediately next to each other just inside the gate?
Indicating a red circle above--above the garage--I'm sorry, midway between the--not quite midway between the garage and the entranceway.
Now, Miss Mazzola, the distance from item no. 6 that you collected to item no. 7, approximately how far is that?
Let's see. Okay. On that we changed our point of reference for the measurements. As we got up near the garage, we took our measurements off the garage.
Would it be fair to say, ma'am, that the approximate distance between stain 6 and stain 7 is at least a hundred feet or thereabouts?
And did Dennis Fung say to you that the collection of three more stains would overtax the laboratory?
Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?
You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?
All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?
There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?
And I believe you said on direct examination that you would collect the first few stains and then the last few stains and it wouldn't be necessary to collect the middle stains as long as they went in the same direction; is that correct?
Well, do you know what direction those drops were going in when you collected them on June 13th?
There really were not any drops that were way out of line. They were following more or less a pathway.
Well, Miss Mazzola, on June 13th did you know whether or not these drops indicated that the person was walking from the Bronco to the house or from the house to the Bronco?
Well, did Mr. Fung in your presence say that these drops have a direction indicating that the person is walking from the Bronco to the house, as opposed from the house to the Bronco?
So you did not know on June 13th which direction these drops were going in, did you?
Now, other than items a, b and c which were photographed but not collected, was there anything else worth documenting with a photograph on the driveway that was photographed?
That was it, just the--just those drops, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and a, b and c; is that right?
Now, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that the blood drop that you have identified as no. 5--I'm sorry--as no. 6, as a and as b are all to the left side of the driveway as you walk in toward the house? Is that a fair statement?
Now, Miss Mazzola, Detective Vannatter testified that it was his theory that Mr. Simpson had returned home the night of the 13th or the 12th, I'm sorry, and opened the gate and walked directly along the south side of this driveway toward the location where the glove was recovered?
First of all, would you agree that the distance from the Rockingham gate to the location where the glove was collected is approximately 250 feet?
I'm going to show you what has been previously admitted as exhibit 1072 which is a surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's home and property. Do you see that? Have you had a chance to look at it?
Now, the only blood stain that is on the south side of the driveway would be stain a; is that correct?
And would you agree that the distance from stain a to the location where the glove was collected is a distance of approximately 250 feet?
All right. And by looking at this surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's house and property, can you see the approximate location where it was, approximately?
All right. Now, beginning at the curb and going to that location, approximately how many feet is that?
All right. And now, instead of the curb, if we come into the location of stain a, which is the one stain that is on the south side of the driveway, approximately how far is stain a from the curb, approximately?
All right. So would it be fair to say that the distance from stain a to the glove is approximately 230 feet?
And isn't it true that when you were at Rockingham on the 13th you examined the walkway for evidence, the walkway leading up to the garage?
And then you also examined the walkway on the south side of the house heading out to where the glove was recovered, did you not?
And isn't it a fact that on that walkway, all the way to where the glove was recovered, you never saw any drop of blood on the sidewalk?
And isn't it true, ma'am, that the wall along the south side of the house is made of stucco?
You personally made no examination of the wall for trace or blood evidence at all?
But as you sit here today, ma'am, are you aware of the fact that no blood stain was ever found anywhere on that stucco wall?
Do you want to exhibit that to the jurors at the end just to make sure they saw all the pertinent information.
Do you want to exhibit that to juror no. 1492 just to make sure they saw all the pertinent information.
Miss Mazzola, the last two stains that you swatched and collected that morning were no. 7 and 8, right?
And as to no. 7 and 8, did you keep swatching those two drops until you had collected the entire blood stain?
Oh, Okay. And to the best of your recollection did you get up as much of the stain that was visible as you possibly could?
Now, back on June 13th, 1994, were you aware that the Los Angeles Police Department had recently begun a DNA testing program?
Were you aware that the type of DNA testing that they were going to be doing or were doing in-house was called PCR typing?
You said I think on direct examination that you took a course in genetics in college?
Had you been taught, either prior to or up to June 13th, that given the exquisite sensitivity of DNA it is essential that safeguards be taken to avoid the risk of contaminating evidence collected?
I think you said on direct examination that you are personally familiar with the issues of contamination and cross-contamination; is that correct?
Were you ever taught at the LAPD that it is essential to take proper safeguards to avoid the risk of contaminating evidence for later DNA typing?
Were you ever taught any special safeguards for the particular problems which can arise for DNA testing?
Have you ever heard the expression referring to PCR/dna typing as "Exquisite sensitivity"? Have you ever heard that expression "Exquisite sensitivity" used in connection with DNA?
Had you been taught at the LAPD mini academy that in the absence of proper safeguards a minute biological specimen, such as a speck of wet blood or a fleck of dry blood can be transferred accidentally by criminalists from one area of a crime scene to another?
Well, has anyone at SID ever told you that in the absence of proper safeguards a minute biological specimen, such as a speck of wet blood or a fleck of dry blood, can be transferred accidentally by a criminalist from one area of a crime scene to another?
I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, that the only training you have received in collecting blood stains is for--is for serological testing in general and not for DNA testing in particular; is that right?
Are there any written guidelines in the--that you have received from the LAPD dealing with any of the particular problems encountered with DNA evidence?
Have you received any handouts from the LAPD regarding the negative effects that heat and humidity have on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
Have you been taught by members of the staff at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that heat and humidity have a negative effect on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
Rephrase the question, counsel. It is an appropriate question if it is phrased appropriately.
Are you aware, to your knowledge, as you sit here today, as to whether heat and humidity can have negative effects on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
Well, when you say you know that heat and humidity can affect the blood stains, have you at least been told that it can affect them adversely?
When you say you are aware that heat and humidity can affect--can affect DNA--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. When say you are aware that heat and humidity can have an effect on blood stain evidence, what effect is it that you believe it will have?
That it might have some effect on the testing, but I'm not sure to what extent or how it would be affected.
No one has told you how heat and humidity will affect blood stain evidence, only that it has an effect? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?
Well, I don't know personally how much it would degrade, if at all, and over what period of time.
Ah, okay, but as you sit here today, it is your understanding that the effect of heat and humidity are that it can degrade the blood stain evidence; is that correct?
Okay. Now, in this particular case you took wet blood swatches and you placed them in a clear plastic bag; isn't that right?
And then you fold over the top of the plastic bag so they don't fall out; isn't that correct?
And sometimes these wet swatches that are in the plastic bag actually stick together, don't they?
Were you aware that putting wet swatches in a plastic bag causes the swatches to retain moisture?
I mean, you know that just from your everyday experiences, that if you take a wet item and if you put it in a plastic bag and you close the top of the plastic bag, it is going to still be real moist in there, isn't it?
As opposed to if you take the item out of the plastic bag and let it dry in the air it will dry much faster, won't it?
Okay. And did you know, prior to taking the witness stand today, that by keeping the swatches moist in that plastic bag that that can--I'm sorry. That that can promote the growth of bacteria on those swatches? Did you know that?
Have you ever had the common everyday experience of putting a wet item, such as a wet bathing suit or something, in a plastic bag and then taking it out hours later and it smells moldy? Has that ever happened to you?
have you ever had the experience where you have kept any wet item in a plastic bag and taken it out many hours later and it smells moldy?
Overruled, but if it is a common experience, I don't think we need to go into it in any detail.
And as you sit here today, based on your experience in genetics, microbiology, your education in college, your education at the LAPD mini academy, are you aware that bacteria eats up pieces of DNA?
Well, based on your education and your training, do you have any knowledge about what effect bacteria has on DNA?
You said that you have some knowledge of the effects of humidity and moisture on a swatch that is kept in a sealed plastic bag. Do you have any awareness of the effect of heat on a wet swatch in a sealed plastic bag?
And have you been told by people at LAPD that just like moisture, heat also can promote bacterial growth?
And have you been told by people at LAPD--by the way, did you have these conversations with people at LAPD prior to June 13th, 1994, or since June 13th, 1994?
Was it just a casual conversation or was it one of the lectures at the mini academy?
And did any of these people, who you had these discussions with at work, talk to you about the combined effects of heat and humidity on a wet blood swatch kept in a sealed plastic bag?
well, did those people tell you, I think you said a moment ago, that heat can cause bacteria to develop? Isn't that right?
And that humidity, the moisture of the swatch in the sealed plastic bag can also possibly cause bacteria to develop as well? You were told that by these people at LAPD; is that right?
So would it be fair to say that if you have both heat and the moisture that together they will both possibly create or cause bacteria to develop on those swatches?
And have you been taught to apply the booking directions contained in the LAPD manual?
Ma'am, have you been taught at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that with respect to preserving wet stains you should do the following: "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 be used as a packaging material?" Were you taught that at LAPD?
Well, ma'am, were you given particular pages of the LAPD manual to know for booking evidence?
Were you told by anybody at SID that the LAPD manual is simply a guideline and not rules which you are required to follow?
Are you aware of the fact, Miss Mazzola, that the Los Angeles Police Department manual states: "That all employees of the department are to conform with the rules and provisions herein contained"? Are you aware of that?
Would you agree, ma'am, that that statement from the Los Angeles Police Department manual declares that this manual sets directions for you and they are not simply guidelines, correct?
Excuse me, counsel. We have gone through this manual in front of this jury for approximately 45 minutes with another witness. You've already established what was done in this case. You've established what the manual says.
Miss Mazzola, you stated that your understanding of the section in the LAPD manual on preserving wet stains is only instructions for final packaging, not temporary packaging; is that right?
Is there any place in the actual rule listed in the LAPD manual that creates that exemption for temporary packaging?
You have never read the LAPD manual section on how to preserve wet stains?
KEY QUOTEHave any of your instructors at the LAPD ever read to you the section from the Los Angeles Police Department manual on how to preserve wet stains at a crime scene?
No one in the whole year and a half that you have been there has ever read that to you?
Now, section 510.12 of the Los Angeles Police Department manual states, A: "Analyzed evidence requiring freezer storage shall be booked at Central Property Division no later than six hours after it is obtained." During the time that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever personally read that section of the LAPD manual?
During the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department has anybody at the LAPD SID mini academy ever read to you this particular section of the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
Would you agree, ma'am, that from the sentence I read to you about this manual, that the manual is not to be regarded as merely a guideline?
Would you agree, ma'am, that neither you nor Mr. Fung booked any of the evidence that needed to be frozen within six hours after it was obtained?
Miss Mazzola, I show you what has already been previously introduced as Prosecution exhibit 163-H which are three analyzed evidence envelopes. Now, when you obtained a reference sample of fresh blood, what color envelope is it to be stored in?
And since you have been--I'm sorry. That is your only experience with--with receiving blood vials, would be in toxicology?
Except for the occasion in this case which I had limited involvement with the blood.
Okay. And in those cases where you receive a fresh--a fresh vial of blood, it is in the gray envelope; is that right?
And on the gray envelope under the word "Analyzed evidence," would you please tell the jury what it says.
And that is an instruction to the person that holds that gray envelope that the evidence is to be refrigerated, correct?
Have you ever been told by anyone, since you have been working at the Los Angeles Police Department SID, that it is perfectly okay, instead of refrigerating a blood vial, to leave it on a counter overnight in a trash bag? Has anyone ever told you that?
Did anyone at SID mini academy ever teach you that it is okay to let wet blood stains remain in a sealed plastic bag in the rear of a truck in the middle of June for seven hours?
Well, you say that--I'm sorry. Were you taught that it is okay to use a plastic bag for short-term packaging?
Well, did they tell you that if they were stored in a plastic bag long-term that the samples could degrade?
They never explained to you what effects packaging in plastic bags would have on the evidence?
They just told you how to do things; they never told you why? Is that your testimony?
Did they ever tell you that if you were going to be out in a truck for more than a half hour or an hour, you shouldn't wait and keep them in plastic bags, instead you should take them out of plastic bags?
But they didn't tell you after so many hours that the evidence can begin to degrade?
Were you ever taught, ma'am, that if the DNA deteriorates in the blood swatch--I'm sorry. Were you ever taught that if the DNA deteriorates in the blood swatch and is then cross-contaminated with other DNA that it makes it more difficult to identify the cross-contamination.
Didn't you say on direct examination that you are aware of the problems of contamination and cross-contamination, Miss Mazzola?
Is one of the problems contamination and cross-contamination, that if a sample is degraded and then is subsequently contaminated by an outside contaminant, that if you then do a test it will be difficult to know whether you are identifying the contaminant or the degraded specimen?
Sustained. We have already broached this topic. I assume there will be other witnesses to this issue.
Could you step down for one second and take a look at it and then you can take your seat again?
And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?
Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration?
And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?
Do you know approximately when it was that you were taken out to do this demonstration?
She was trying to answer the question, Mr. Neufeld. You have interrupted her again.
Okay. Now, aside from Mr. Goldberg being present and a still photographer and a video photographer, were there other people present?
And did they assist you or at least give you instructions during the course of this demonstration?
And during the course of your doing this demonstration, having these photographs taken, did any--did either Mr. Yamauchi or Mr. Fung give you any direction?
During the time that you were actually doing the demonstration, did Mr. Goldberg give you any direction as to what to do?
All right. Obviously this is a demonstration project, a piece of demonstrative evidence. I'm sure the jury understands it was created for this case. Proceed.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the afternoon. Please remember my admonitions to you. And we will reconvene in about fifteen minutes. All parties are ordered to return in fifteen.
You have never read the LAPD manual section on how to preserve wet stains? ... That is correct.
Not since you just mentioned it.
We were just told final packaging was not to be in plastic.
As to what he wanted to depict, yes.
Those entries at the time were meant to reflect that, yes.