All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
Andrea Mazzola, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Miss Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Good morning, Miss Mazzola.
Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
Now, Miss Mazzola, after you left Rockingham the first time on the morning of June 13th, you and Dennis Fung went to the Bundy location; is that right?
And I think you testified on direct examination that when you got there, umm, you and Dennis Fung first talked to the detectives and waited until the Coroners had finished moving the bodies before you entered the scene; is that correct?
Well, Miss Mazzola, when you first arrived, the Coroners were moving the bodies, were they not?
And were you present for a discussion with the detectives about the scene before you personally entered the crime scene?
All right. When you stood outside the tape, were there any other detectives with you?
Okay. Well, were either of those detectives with you when you first arrived at Bundy that morning?
When you first arrived at Bundy that morning, before you actually went into the crime scene, while the Coroners were still moving the bodies, was Detective Vannatter standing or Detective Lange standing nearby you?
Now, you said on direct examination that if the glove and the hat at Bundy were in contact with one another, trace evidence could or would be transferred? Is that an accurate statement of what you testified to?
Now, you said also that when you arrived you saw Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white blanket; is that correct?
Did you see Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white object when you arrived at Bundy?
At some point that morning did you see Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white object at Bundy?
And you had been taught that trace evidence can move when bodies are manipulated at a murder scene? Haven't you been taught that?
Now, let me just ask you one hypothetical, ma'am. If this white object that was on Mr. Goldman's body had been used to also cover Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, then is it possible that trace evidence could move from the blanket to both victims?
Didn't you say a moment ago, ma'am, that you had been trained and taught at the LAPD that trace evidence can move when bodies are manipulated?
And didn't you receive some training at the SID mini academy on the dangers of trace evidence contaminating or cross-contaminating different evidence at a crime scene?
Okay. Now, let me just ask you this hypothetical again: If the same white object that you saw on Mr. Goldman's body had been previously lying on top of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson--
Well, would you agree, ma'am, that trace evidence can move from the white object you saw on top of the body to the clothing being worn by that person?
And the white object that you saw on top of Mr. Goldman, was that a white blanket?
All right. Well, but you did see that there was some white object that had been on top of Mr. Goldman's body, correct?
Did Dennis Fung instruct you to collect and preserve that white object for analysis?
And to your knowledge was that white object ever preserved for trace evidence analysis?
Did Dennis Fung even instruct you to examine that white object while you were at Bundy that day?
As you sit here today has anyone told you that at some point during that morning an envelope and a glove had been moved at the Bundy location?
As you sit here today has anyone ever told you that the envelope and the glove recovered at Bundy had been moved prior to your collection of it?
Well, I'm not asking you--and I apologize if the question was somewhat inartful. I'm not asking you whether you were told about the movement prior to your collecting it. I'm just asking you whether or not at any time up until this morning anyone had told you that both the envelope and the glove had been moved prior to the collection of those items?
I don't know about the envelope. The glove might have been turned over. I'm not positive.
You said also that at Bundy and Rockingham you wore a pair of rubber gloves to protect you from any kind of bio hazards; is that correct?
Well, as you sit here today, ma'am, do you have any independent recollection as to whether or not you changed your gloves at any point while you were at Bundy?
Did you testify on direct examination, ma'am, that it was your practice to simply change your gloves when they became uncomfortable? Do you remember testifying to that?
Didn't you testify on direct examination that it was your practice to change your gloves either when it became uncomfortable or when you went into a new area? Was that your testimony?
And as you sit here today, do you have an independent recollection of feeling--finding the gloves uncomfortable at one point or another?
They became uncomfortable. They--we moved around, we changed gloves. You don't really need a reason to do it.
Ma'am, I'm just asking you based upon what you testified for your reasons for changing gloves, do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, of experiencing discomfort of the gloves and changing them as a result of that while you were at Bundy?
Tell me as best you can, ma'am, when were the several times that you changed your gloves while you were at Bundy?
Well, give me approximately when, ma'am. You said it happened two or three times.
I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it.
KEY QUOTEYou said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?
Well, tell me what you were doing at the moment you changed your gloves the first time, ma'am?
So you don't have any independent recollection as to what you were doing at any point when you say you changed your gloves?
Now, ma'am, between the time that you picked up the hat and the glove at Bundy, you didn't change your gloves then, did you?
And the reason you know that you didn't do that then is because you saw it on the videotape; isn't that correct?
And that is the reason you know that you didn't change your gloves then, isn't it?
In fact, I think you testified that until you saw the videotape you didn't even have an independent recollection of having picked up the glove and the hat at Bundy that day; isn't that correct?
Right. And so in the absence of independent--I'm sorry--so am I correct in stating that you didn't have an independent recollection of it until you actually saw the videotape?
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I just want to show a portion of the videotape as she is picking up the hat and the glove.
Yes. Do we have it cued up to the portion that is pertinent here, because we have already seen this tape before, counsel?
Now, Miss Mazzola, at this point you are using the--obviously the same hands with the same gloves and you are opening up the bag, correct, for the next item?
Now, Miss Mazzola, you used the same left hand to pick up the glove that you used to pick up the hat, right?
All right. And Miss Mazzola, you didn't, in between picking up the hat and the glove, look down to see whether or not you had picked up any other biological material or any trace evidence on your hand, did you?
In fact, before you picked up the hat, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not you had any other biological matter on your fingertips, did you?
And, umm, after you picked up the hat and put it in the bag, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not there was any trace evidence from the hat before you picked up the glove, did you?
Would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence from the hat can be transferred to the rubber glove--transferred to your rubber glove when you pick it up?
And would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence that is on your rubber glove can then be transferred to the leather glove when you pick that up?
Ma'am, did you say before that one way that trace evidence gets transferred from one object to another is when those two objects come in contact?
And would you agree that not every time two objects come in contact does trace evidence move from one object to the next, right?
Depends on what kind of item they are, it depends where the fibers are; isn't that right?
So you could handle several different things and the hairs and fibers might not come off on the first thing or the second thing you touched, but might come off on the third item; isn't that correct?
Now, initially on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, didn't you say that it wasn't necessary to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove because the two objects were touching? Did you testify to that on direct examination?
Did you testify not that they were simply in close contact, but did you testify that they were actually touching?
Well, would you agree--I'm sorry. When you use the expression "Close contact," Does that mean touching or does that mean the two objects are close to one another but not actually touching?
Miss Mazzola, when you testified on direct examination last week in this case were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And did you change gloves in between collecting the hat and the glove? "Answer: No. "Question: Why not? "Answer: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers last week at this trial?
Well, later on Mr. Goldberg asked you the same question again about the physical relationship to the hat and the glove, did he not?
Well, ma'am, at page 23790 were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question by MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you said on direct examination, when I was asking you about collecting the glove and the watch cap, the cap, that they were in close proximity or touching? "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: Which was it? "Answer: Reviewing photographs, they were in very close proximity to each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
And just before you were asked those questions and you gave those answers at page 23790, were you sitting in this courtroom and present when--when Judge Ito said to you--
Wait, wait. Do you recall if there was a recess of any type in between those questions?
Wait, wait. We have a procedure called taking judicial notice of the Court's own proceedings. I will take judicial notice, and the jury is to assume to be true, that there was in fact a recess between those two sessions. It is a matter of the Court's own record. Proceed.
Now, during that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?
KEY QUOTEDid you have any discussion with the Prosecutor or any attorney regarding this issue over the lunch recess, if you recall?
You didn't have your own? Someone else in this building had to show it to you; is that right?
And it was after you were shown those photographs or a photograph that you then changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
And ma'am, is it your position that the reason you didn't have to that change your gloves between picking up the hat and the glove is because the two items were in close proximity to one another?
Well, when you make that decision that two objects in close proximity but not touching don't require a change of gloves on your part, are you assuming that the hat and the glove were worn by the same person?
So you don't know whether or not the hat and the glove were worn by the same person, do you?
And you don't even know when the items were placed at that location when you collected them; isn't that correct?
You don't know whether those two items were placed on the ground at different times, do you?
And isn't it true, since you can't assume either of those two facts, ma'am, that one cannot assume that just because two items are close to one another, although not touching, that the trace evidence on one will most likely be on the other?
When you pick up the hat, you have to be careful because there may be trace evidence on it? That is something that you were taught at the SID mini academy; isn't that right?
And you were also taught to be careful with different items that are collected at a crime scene because they may have different types of hairs and fibers on them; isn't that correct?
Well, were you taught to assume that all items found at a crime scene are likely to have the same hairs and fibers because they are found at the same crime scene?
Okay. And there is no telling whether or not the same hairs and fibers on one object would be found on another object, correct?
And you can't make that assumption based on how far apart two items are to one another, can you?
So, ma'am, would it--so wouldn't you agree that your earlier testimony in this case that you didn't have to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove here, because they were close to one another and therefore trace evidence on one would be on the other one, is not really consistent with what you were taught by the SID people?
When you say you don't know, do you mean you don't know what the supervisors at SID taught you?
Well, if the objects had been fifteen feet apart, had you been taught by people at SID academy to change gloves before picking up the different objects?
Well, in your own mind, based on your own experience, do you consider ten feet far apart?
But you made the decision here that because the two items were within inches of one another that you didn't have to change the gloves; is that correct?
I can't recall if I asked him about it or what. I'm not exactly sure what conversation we had at that time.
You mean it may very well be that you asked Dennis Fung whether you should change your gloves for this situation and he said no?
And when you recovered that set of keys, Miss Mazzola, did you notice that there was blood on them?
Well, would you agree, based on your training, that the presence of blood on keys might be evidence that someone used the keys to defend themselves?
Have you been trained as a criminalist to make an effort to identify relevant evidence?
And have you been trained as a criminalist to identify when items of evidence have blood on them?
And if it has blood on it, that is something that is going to get special attention from you as a criminalist, isn't it?
And so if--if the keys had blood on them, as a criminalist wouldn't you want to have those keys examined for serology purposes?
Well, don't the serologists and other people at SID expect the criminalist who is collecting the evidence to give them a debriefing, so to speak, of what you found and to hear your suggestions as to what should be done? Isn't that something you are expected to do?
Okay. And but you would agree that the supervising criminalist, whoever he or she may be in a given crime scene, is expected to brief the other people at SID as to what items may have relevant or potentially relevant evidence?
And based on what you were taught, you would expect a supervising criminalist to tell the people at SID that keys that were recovered had blood on them?
Now, you also picked up an envelope which contained eyeglasses at the Bundy scene, didn't you?
You noted on your field notes that morning that the envelope contained eyeglasses, correct?
In your training at SID has--have you read personally or has anyone at SID read to you the following provision of the Los Angeles Police Department manual, referring to section 510.10?
Well, in your training at SID were you given instruction as to what methods to utilize for the proper booking of items of evidence?
And were you told or instructed that when you take an item which is in a closed container that you are expected to open that container to see what is inside? Is that something you have been taught?
And is there in fact a standard procedure utilized at SID for inspecting envelopes or other types of closed containers when you collect them to investigate what is inside?
Well, is it your procedure to simply open the item and look inside and see what is there?
You noted on your property--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You noted on your field notes, Miss Mazzola, that item 39 that was collected was an envelope with glasses; is that correct?
And did Mr. Fung open the envelope in your presence to show you that there was a pair of eyeglasses inside?
Okay. So you saw a pair of eyeglasses inside just by looking through a partial opening in the envelope?
And when you examined that pair of eyeglasses inside, did there seem to be anything unusual about it?
We just noted that there were eyeglasses inside the envelope and that was the extent of it.
At that point, when you peered into that envelope, you didn't notice that anything was missing from those pair of eyeglasses; is that correct?
Your Honor, with the Court's permission I would like the witness to open the envelope for item 39.
Mr. Neufeld, I have asked Mrs. Robertson to see if she can get a sheet of butcher paper because of the nature of that item.
Why don't you just spread that out on the counter in front of you. All right. Mr. Neufeld, proceed. And this is Court evidence item which, Mr. Neufeld?
32. Thank you. Proceed. Mr. Goldberg, if you want to stand behind counsel, you may.
Now, Miss Mazzola, before you begin opening this--the zip-lock bag, the large zip-lock bag that the items are in, can you tell what items are actually inside the zip-lock bag?
There is a white envelope with writing on it. And appears to be a pair of glasses inside.
Now, the paper--the brown paper bag that you just described, would that be the brown paper bag that the white envelope with the eyeglasses in it was placed into at the crime scene?
All right. The record should reflect that the witness is breaking the seals that are on the top zip part of the bag. Mr. Neufeld.
Now, the--could you please open the white envelope as well that was inside the bag.
And this lens that you see in the envelope isn't even in the eyeglass, right? It is outside the glasses, correct?
But when you looked at the envelope that day you said there was nothing unusual about the pair of eyeglasses, correct?
Okay. You didn't notice--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Would you please feel the rest of the brown paper bag to see if there is any other lens in that.
And there are two small bindles in there. Could you feel those to see if there is a lens in that.
Miss Mazzola, do you know what happened to the second lens after you collected these items--this pair of eyeglasses on the morning of June 13th?
Well, Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that when you collected the item it was a pair of eyeglasses, correct?
Miss Mazzola, did you say that you didn't notice anything at all unusual about the pair of eyeglasses?
Did you also say that you didn't notice anything unusual when you peered into that envelope and looked into the eyeglasses?
I noticed that there was a pair of eyeglasses in the envelope. I did not open the envelope.
Did you also testify a moment ago that when you looked into the envelope you didn't notice anything unusual?
From what I could see and as far as I looked they were just a pair of eyeglasses.
And if a lens was missing from the pair of eyeglasses, that would be unusual, would it not?
To your knowledge has any investigation been conducted by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department to find out where the second lens is?
With the Court's permission I would like to show another brief snippet of videotape.
A videotape that was shown both by the Prosecution on the direct examination and also by the Defense.
That comment assumes facts that aren't in evidence, but you can show the videotape.
Now, Miss Mazzola, you said on direct examination that the object--it was your opinion that the object that you were passing to Mr. Fung at this moment is not the envelope which contained the eyeglasses; is that correct?
And umm, I believe you said that it was your practice not to pass an object that had blood on it to the individual who didn't have gloves on; is that correct?
That and it does not appear to be the right packaging. The main thing is I would not pass anything with blood on it to an ungloved colleague.
Now, by the time you picked up that envelope, it is already sometime, what, around noon, would you say, on the 13th?
And ma'am, isn't it true that one side of that envelope doesn't have very much blood on it? Take a look at it.
Could you please show the jury, hold it up for the jury, first the side--the back of the envelope which has a fair amount of blood on it.
And now please turn it around and display for the jury the side of the envelope which is pretty clean and doesn't have much blood on it.
Well, Miss Mazzola, when you were packing items of evidence that day, keys, the beeper and other items, you put them in envelopes such as this that I'm showing you right now, indicating Prosecution's exhibit 163-D, as in David?
Ma'am, isn't it true that that day on June 13th you had no coin envelopes that were the size of the object shown in the picture that you are looking at right now?
And all of your notes that day were being written on a clipboard; is that correct?
Before you took the witness stand on direct examination, during your prep session, were you told that the Defense in this case had suggested that this item in this picture was in fact the envelope that contained the glasses? Had you been told that?
And had you been told also that when Dennis Fung was confronted with that allegation that Dennis Fung denied it?
That that item that you see in that image is in fact the envelope that contained the eyeglasses? Were you told that Dennis Fung denied it?
When you testified at the trial last week on direct examination, Mr. Goldberg simply put up this image and asked you whether it was the envelope; is that correct?
But when you were prepped on this particular matter during the prep sessions, you had been told that it was the Defense position that it was the envelope, weren't you?
And when you were told that, didn't Mr. Goldberg or other Prosecutors tell you that it was the Prosecution's position that it was not the envelope?
I'm now going to show another small segment of the videotape that was shown by the Prosecutor on direct examination.
Now, when you saw this videotape when you were being prepped--I'm sorry. You did see this videotape when you were being prepped, didn't you?
Well, you didn't see it for the first time when you were on direct examination in this trial, did you?
And when you were being prepped by, umm--I'm sorry. When you testified at the trial, you were asked by Mr. Goldberg is that the leather glove and you said no; is that correct?
Okay. But when you were prepped by the Prosecutor in this case, weren't you told that it was the Defense position that the brown object that you see on the white sheet or white blanket in this picture was in fact the Bundy glove?
I was asked if I remember the glove being there in that position and then they mentioned that the Defense was thinking it was the glove.
Okay. And so you knew, when you testified at trial here and said it wasn't the glove, that the Defense was taking the position that it was the glove, correct?
Well, Miss Mazzola, you knew before you got on the witness stand at this trial that the Defense was taking the position that that was the glove, didn't you?
And Miss Mazzola, when you got on the witness stand here on direct examination, had you already been told that that glove had been moved at least once?
Had you been shown photographs which displayed the glove in two different locations?
All right. And would it be fair to say, Miss Mazzola, that you didn't know, when you saw the glove in those two different positions, whether the glove had been moved from position 1 to some other position and then have someone else return it to what you saw as position 2? Is that a fair statement?
But Miss Mazzola, even before you testified as to where you remember seeing the glove, you told us a moment ago that you were shown photographs which showed the glove in two different positions, correct?
And would you agree that for the glove to get into two different positions it had to have been moved by somebody or something? Would that be correct.
And isn't it also possible, Miss Mazzola, that the glove was originally in the position displayed in the first photograph that you saw and then somehow it got moved to another location and then someone simply put it back close to where it was initially and so you saw it in the second position?
Sustained. All right. Counsel, we are going to take our recess at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, and do not allow anybody to communicate with you. And we will resume at 10:30. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. If you would repackage those items, please, and return them to Mrs. Robertson.
The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other.
I corrected it, yes.
I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it.
There does not appear to be anything.
During that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?