Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes?
Well, when you got back to the laboratory, either on June 13th or on June 14th, did you tell Dennis Fung that he hadn't kept complete and accurate field notes for June 13th?
Did you go to either Miss Kestler, the head of the laboratory, did you go to her and tell her that the person you were working with that day did not comply with the requirement as you believed at that time, that is, to keep complete field notes?
Did you go to Mr. Matheson, the no. 2 person, and tell him that your teammate had failed to follow the requirement of keeping field notes?
Is--Miss Mazzola, you said that after August 23rd you were told that you do not have to fill out all the boxes and columns on these field reports; is that correct?
All right. Who taught you that some of these boxes and some of these columns did not have to be filled out, Miss Mazzola?
Which criminalist, Miss Mazzola, told you that you don't have to fill out every box and every column on these fields notes? What are their names.
That is irrelevant, counsel. That is what she testified to. That is the fact she has testified to. Who told her doesn't matter. Let's proceed.
And Miss Mazzola, you were taught by Mr. Matheson and Miss Kestler that these reports specifically were prepared to be filled out by criminalists at the scene; isn't that correct?
Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?
As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.
Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?
Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?
Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?
And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?
Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?
Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?
Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?
And Miss Mazzola, on the crime scene checklist there is a box, a question that says "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?" Isn't there?
Well, isn't it relevant to the overall investigation to know whether a crime scene has been altered?
In fact, ma'am, if a crime scene has been altered it could render subsequent scientific analysis unreliable, couldn't it?
Well, ma'am, for instance, if a blanket, for instance, okay, was used to alter the crime scene and it left trace evidence where there had been none previously, that could render an analysis of certain trace evidence unreliable, couldn't it?
All right. And that is why the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division has asked you to fill out this question, "Has the scene been altered and if so by whom and how"; isn't that right?
And they taught you in the SID mini academy that it is important to know who altered it and how it was altered so you would know whether or not subsequent analysis is worthless; isn't that right?
Well, wouldn't you want to know the extent to which a crime scene had been altered in understanding the value of evidence obtained at that crime scene?
For the most part you can look at the evidence and sort of tell if it has been trampled through. Umm, people at the scene, when they first arrive, are extremely careful of what they touch, where they step, because of the fact that there is evidence present.
Miss Mazzola, when you arrived at the Bundy crime scene, how many people were there inside the tape, approximately?
You don't remember? You don't remember who was at the crime scene when you got there, ma'am?
Ma'am, were there people wearing suits who weren't in uniform inside the crime--inside the yellow evidence tape when you arrived at Bundy crime scene?
And there were people from the Coroner's office inside that tape when you arrived at the scene, weren't there?
And ma'am, isn't it fair to say that you cannot assume that no one altered the crime scene before you arrived; isn't that correct?
And isn't it correct, ma'am, that the reason that they asked you to investigate whether the crime scene had been altered is because they don't want you to assume it hasn't been; isn't that correct?
Are you required to make a determination as to whether the crime scene has been altered?
Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?
Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.
Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?
What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?
Well, once you get an idea of who had been there, Miss Mazzola, don't you have to ask the people what they did so you can make a determination in your own mind as to whether or not they did in fact alter it?
Ask them what? When the first officers arrived on the scene, they are looking at the victims. They were not going to remember exactly where they stepped. I don't know what you are asking.
Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that?
They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?
Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?
So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?
And on the morning of June 14th you were in the laboratory processing samples; is that right?
I was working filling out property reports for a car search we had done previously.
And is the reason you went out with Dennis Fung on the 14th to the Bronco because it is a standard L.A. Police Department SID procedure that once a criminalist becomes involved in the case, he or she continues with the case and subsequent searches and investigations?
If you are absolutely unable to get away, if you had to go to Court or something like that, another criminalist would step in.
Okay. But aside from either illness or--or you have responsibilities testifying in Court, it is the standard procedure at LAPD that once a criminalist is assigned to a case that he or she sticks with it for each of the searches; is that correct?
But in this case, ma'am, you didn't stick with this case beyond the 14th, did you?
And on June 28th you did not participate with Dennis Fung in the search of Mr. Simpson's home, did you?
On each of those occasions, to your knowledge, Mr. Fung had another team member, right?
And on July 3rd, when Mr. Fung went back out to Bundy on a crime scene investigation, you didn't go with him on that occasion either?
To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, was it Dennis Fung's decision that you be replaced on this crime--on this case?
Do you know--well, who made the decision, Miss Mazzola, to your knowledge, that you should not go out with Dennis Fung on those subsequent searches in connection with this case?
Well, Miss Mazzola, you were no longer his team member on those June 28th and July 3rd investigations; is that correct?
You weren't present with Dennis Fung on either of these occasion, were you? Your Honor, subject to testimony--there has already been testimony that there was investigation done on those dates.
Had you been told by anyone at SID that you would not be accompanying Mr. Fung on June 28th for those investigations in connection with this case?
Had you been told by anyone that you would be--at SID that you would not be accompanying Dennis Fung on the July 3rd investigation in connection with this case?
Well, Miss Mazzola, to your knowledge, was there a decision made by anybody at SID to replace you on this case?
Okay. Now, let's just jump ahead a second to the June 14th search you did of the Bronco at the print shed. Okay?
And I believe you mentioned that you did what is known as a phenolphthalein test on the accelerator, the brake pedal and the emergency brake pad; is that correct?
And when you did those three tests, did you place a single swab of cotton on each of those three items? Is that what you did?
Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?
Who was it who told you that you should use the same swab to do a presumptive test for blood on three separate items?
Prior to your going out there on June 14th had you received any instruction or training on the use of the phenolphthalein test?
And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
Well, when Mr. Fung, your supervisor that day on June 14th, told you to use the same single swab on three different items to test for the presence of blood, did you say to him, "Mr. Fung, Dennis, this is not what I'm supposed to be doing"? Did you say that?
And is the reason you followed his directions that day, Miss Mazzola, because you didn't want to rock the boat?
Miss Mazzola, I asked you a question. Would it be fair to say you wouldn't want to lose that job?
Miss Mazzola, would it be fair to say you didn't want to lose that job at that point?
Overruled. You can answer the question. She still has the job and it is much later. I assume?
Right, I did not want to lose the job and that would not make me lose it.
KEY QUOTEThe critical comments of supervisors could have an impact on whether or not you would pass that probation; is that correct?
And Miss Mazzola, when you looked at those three items, the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake pedal, you did not observe any red stains on them; isn't that correct?
and the purpose of this phenolphthalein test, Miss Mazzola, is to learn whether there could be blood present; isn't that right?
In fact, there were stains that you tested on June 13th, umm, which weren't even red; isn't that correct?
I'm sorry, I see from a furrowed brow that it was an unclear question. I will withdraw it.
Would you agree, ma'am, that some of the stains you examined on June 13th at Rockingham, for instance, weren't red stains, but nevertheless, you did a phenolphthalein test?
For instance, you looked at stains in the family room at Mr. Simpson's house, correct?
Would it refresh your recollection if you were to look at your notes, your field notes from that day?
Well, I'm just asking you whether it is the garage. If it was the door leading out, if that is your recollection, then is that your recollection.
Now, when you get a negative result on a phenolphthalein test, that is conclusive, isn't it?
And when I say it is conclusive, does it mean to you and you have been taught that it can't possibly be blood if it is negative?
However, a positive result, when that little swab turns that--I think you say magenta?
Okay. Turns that magenta pink color, it is not a definitive result; isn't that right?
And the test that you do, this phenolphthalein test, it certainly isn't a test for human blood; isn't that right?
And in your training at this--at SID, umm, did you learn in fact that there are many other substances, other than blood, which can also give you that magenta color, which aren't blood?
And were you taught, ma'am, that some of them are the juices from common vegetables and fruits?
and were you also taught, ma'am, that even bacteria, germs, okay, that aren't visible to the human eye, can also give a false positive when you do the phenolphthalein test?
When they taught you how to do this test at SID, did they encourage you to read scientific literature on the subject as well?
Okay. And was any of the reading that you did peer reviewed articles in the scientific articles?
And have you ever read any scientific publication which talks about or describes how bacteria invisible to the human eye can give a positive test for the phenolphthalein test?
Ma'am, in your training at SID did they ever teach you to use what are called negative controls?
Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a negative control is.
It is using the same item, be it a swatch or a swab, that you would use to collect a stain or to run a test. You run the test on the--a brand new different swab. It should be negative since nothing has been collected on the swab.
And, ma'am, when you did the phenolphthalein test with the single swab on the brake pedal, the emergency brake and the accelerator, you didn't use any negative control to see whether or not something else other than blood might be generating a false positive reaction, did you?
And would you agree that other than the various vegetable and fruit juices and other substances that can generate a false positive, that sloppiness or carelessness on the part of a criminalist can also lead to a false positive?
Well, let me ask you this hypothetical, Miss Mazzola: If an inexperienced criminalist inadvertently touched an area where there is a blood stain on the carpet on the driver's side of that Bronco, inadvertently put their hand, with even a rubber glove, on either the pedal, the accelerator or the brake pad, couldn't that leave a substance that would give you a positive result?
You are saying that if you touched moist blood on the carpet and then brought your hand to the brake pedal, the emergency brake or the accelerator, that absolutely could not generate a false positive or a positive result?
The swabs we use are not the normal q-tips. They have an extremely long wooden handle. Our hands never come near the tip of the swabs.
What I'm asking you, ma'am, is not whether your hands come close to the tip of the swab. I'm asking if your hand, at some other point while you were in the Bronco, touched accidentally, if it did while you were in the Bronco, touched accidentally a blood stain on the carpet, if that hand inadvertently came in contact with the pedals while you are down there mucking about in the car, could that generate a positive result?
Okay. Now, on June 14th it was yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect every single blood stain on the outside and inside of the Bronco that was visible to you; isn't that right?
And each time that you set out to collect blood stains in this case, for each stain that you collected, Miss Mazzola, weren't you instructed to collect as much of the stain as you possibly could collect?
In fact, you were supposed to collect the entire visible stain; isn't that right?
And it would be--and you were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching that blood stain until the blood was completely collected; isn't that correct?
And in fact you have been taught by the laboratory that it was important to get as much up as possible in the event that DNA testing might be considered?
Okay. And when you were there during those three hours the press wasn't there to distract you, were they?
Okay. And there was--was there a large group of detectives with you when you were at the print shed?
so they weren't--so the detectives weren't distracting you either that day, were they?
In other words, Miss Mazzola, when you were at the print shed on the 14th you were able to pursue your tasks conscientiously and professionally as best you could; is that right?
And during those three hours that you were at the Bronco on June 14th, you made a systematic examination of the outside of that car, didn't you?
And you systematically examined the entire exterior of the Bronco for even the smallest yet visible specks of blood; isn't that right?
And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that on June 14th Dennis Fung never pointed out to you any dark red stains on the white metal portion of the sill on the driver's door, did he?
In fact, you remember him pointing out a stain outside the passenger door; isn't that right?
And as you sit here today you have no independent recollection of Dennis Fung ever pointing out to you any small stains on the sill of the driver's door; isn't that correct?
All right. Mr. Neufeld, would this be a good spot or do you need a few more questions on this line?
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief recess for the Court reporter, fifteen minutes. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, have any conversations with anybody about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. All right. We will see you back in fifteen minutes. Miss Mazzola, you may step down.
I was told to use one swab and test all three.
Yes.
I did not want to lose the job and that would not make me lose it.
I didn't tell Mr. Fung anything like that.
Hypothetically it could.