In fact, when you collected item no. 11, Miss Mazzola, did you make a control swatch?

Yes.

And then you also made a separate swatch of the item of evidence; is that correct?

Correct.

And even before you collected item 11, Miss Mazzola, did you make an entry in your field notes indicating the location of the item?

Yes.

And when you collected the item, did you also make an entry in your field notes as to the time at which you collected it?

Yes.

And what was the time, ma'am?

It's approximately 1540.

Now, Miss Mazzola, you testified that you learned subsequent to your testifying on August 23rd that it really was not necessary for you to fill in the time for every item that you collected at a crime scene; is that correct?

Correct.

And were you told that you only had to enter the times where it was relevant?

Some people said that, yes.

Well, let me ask you what your criteria were on June 13th. What was your criteria for deciding when to write down a time on the field notes as opposed to those instances where you chose not to write down a time?

I really don't remember what my criteria was at the time.

Well, by looking at your field notes now, can you reconstruct what your reason was for writing down times that you collected some items, but not writing down the times that you collected other items?

Not really, no.

But it is your best recollection that the primary criteria should be when the criminalist believes it relevant; is that right?

From what I've learned subsequent to that, yes.

Now, for item no. 6, which was a bloodstain at Rockingham, you did write down the time; did you not?

I believe so.

Why don't you check your notes.

Let me make sure. Yes.

But you didn't write down the time for any of the stains that you collected at Bundy; is that correct?

That's correct.

Now, is the reason that you gave that kind of disparate treatment to the single drop at Rockingham as opposed to all of the--or as opposed to any and all of the stains at Bundy, because you believe that item no. 6 at Rockingham was relevant and the stain--or the time you collected item no. 6 at Rockingham was relevant, but the time that you collected any and all of the stains at Bundy were irrelevant?

That's unintelligible. Also, a single drop misstates the testimony.

Overruled. Do you understand the question?

Not really.

Rephrase the question.

Certainly.

You would agree that you didn't note the time that you collected any of the stains at Bundy; is that right?

That's correct.

My question therefore, Miss Mazzola, is, is the reason that you recorded the time you collected item no. 6 at Rockingham but didn't record the collection of any of the stains at Bundy because you deemed time to be relevant for item no. 6 but irrelevant with respect to all the blood drops at Bundy?

No.

Well, if relevant was supposed to be the criteria by which you decided whether to note the time, then what was the reason why you noted it for no. 6 at Rockingham but didn't note it for a single stain at Bundy?

Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

I learned that it would be relevant since then. At the time, I was trying to keep track of the time at--when we arrived at Bundy, Mr. Fung informed me that we would be collecting a lot of samples, the time that we start picking up, the time that we ended, keep an eye on that. Individual samples don't bother.

Well, when you say the time that you started, you mean the time that you collected the first item to the time you collected the last item?

He said try to keep an eye on that and that was it.

Okay. Did you note--what was the first bloodstain that you collected at Bundy? Bundy.

Property item 41.

That was the first--that was the first stain you collected? And did you note in your field notes the time that you collected the first stain?

No.

What was the last stain that you collected at Bundy?

The last stain was from the shoeprint that Mr. Fung lifted.

And did you note the time of that?

No, we did not.

So is it now your best recollection that Dennis Fung told you to note the time you collected the first stain and the time you collected the last stain, but you simply forgot to do it?

Yes.

And once you entered the house after you collected item 11, the first item that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?

Correct.

Those would be the drops of blood that you found in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home?

Correct.

And before you collected item no. 12, you did an inspection of the first floor of the house; did you not?

I can't remember if we inspected first or picked up first.

All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?

Let's see. Yes.

And what time was that?

1630.

That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.

4:30.

Thank you. And either before or after you picked up item 12, you did do an inspection of the first floor of the house looking for bloody clothing; is that right?

For blood in general.

All right. Looking for bloodstains?

Correct.

Looking for blood smears?

Correct.

Looking for flecks of dry blood?

Correct.

And you examined the kitchen, didn't you?

Yes.

And you examined the kitchen sink?

I did not personally.

Well, did you--do you know whether Dennis Fung examined the kitchen sink?

No foundation, personal knowledge.

Overruled.

Personally I don't know if he did or not.

Okay. Did you examine the laundry room?

Yes.

Did you examine the living room?

Yes.

And the dining room?

Yes.

And would you agree that except for the several drops that you found right in the foyer inside the front door, that there were no bloodstains found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

That's correct.

And that there was no blood smears found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

That is correct.

And that there were no blood flakes, flakes of dry blood found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

We did not find any.

Well, that's what you were looking for, weren't you?

That's correct.

And you were taught, ma'am, looking for blood evidence to examine the location in a systematic way; isn't that correct?

This has been asked and answered.

It is redundant.

Not to the inside of the house.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Especially with negative results.

And after you inspected the first floor, you went up to the second floor; is that right?

That is correct.

And did you inspect counters?

Yes.

Did you inspect light switches?

Yes.

Did you inspect the shelves in Mr. Simpson's closet?

As the shelves themselves or the contents? What--

Just the front of the shelves.

I--

For any sign of blood.

I don't remember if we looked at the front of the shelves or not.

Did you look at knobs on the drawers?

I believe so.

And no flakes of dry blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you; is that correct?

That is correct.

And no smears of wet blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you?

We did not find any.

One moment.

And while you were there, Miss Mazzola, did you inspect either the intercom or the telephone to see whether or not there were any bloodstains on it?

I did not personally, no.

Do you know whether Dennis Fung did?

I do not know personally if he did or not.

Well, are telephones one of the locations that you were taught at the SID mini academy to examine for the presence of blood?

We were not taught to look at the phone. We were taught to look at things in general.

Now, up on the second floor in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, were you shown a pair of dark socks on the floor?

There were a pair of dark socks on the floor.

And who pointed out the socks to you?

I don't know if it was one of the detectives or Mr. Fung.

Didn't you and Dennis Fung ascend the stairs together to the second floor?

I don't know if we were together all the time or not. I can't remember.

Not all the time. But were you together when you went upstairs, when you left the first floor and went to the second floor?

We were both on the second level at the same time.

Okay. And at that point in time, you were still looking for any sign of blood; is that correct?

Yes.

And you were also looking to see whether or not any of the clothing had blood; is that correct?

Yes.

And your--was Dennis Fung already in the room where the socks were prior to your arrival in that room?

I don't think so, but I can't be positive.

Did Dennis Fung pick up the socks in your presence?

He collected the socks, yes.

And he--did he give them to you to put into a brown paper bag or did he put them in the bag himself?

He put them in the bag himself.

And you saw him do that?

Yes.

And you said a moment ago that both you and Dennis Fung were looking for blood; is that right?

Yes.

And you saw of course Dennis Fung examine or look at the socks before he put them in the bag; did he not?

I don't know if I was watching him all the time or not.

So as you sit here today, you don't know whether or not and to what extent Dennis Fung examined those socks before putting them in the bag. Is that your testimony?

Yes.

Did you personally observe the socks before or examine the socks up close before they were put in the bag?

No.

You relied on Dennis Fung to do that?

Yes.

Well, assumes facts not in evidence that it was done.

Overruled.

I'm asking for her state of mind.

Overruled.

And while you were in that room with Dennis Fung, did he at any point express to you, "Oh, I see blood on the socks"?

Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Did Dennis Fung say anything to you to indicate that he observed stains on the socks?

Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

When you were up in the bedroom, did you examine the carpet where the socks were found?

I did not personally, no.

Did you see Dennis Fung look at the carpet where the socks were found?

Vague as to look.

Overruled.

I can't remember if I saw him looking at the carpet while he picked up the socks or not.

Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you and he--it was your purpose to be examining items in the house for the presence of blood; is that correct?

This has been asked and answered. Objection under 352, this line of questioning.

As to the carpet only, would you focus in on that please? But we've all been to Mr. Simpson's house, the jury, counsel. We've seen the number of items that are there. If we go through each and every item, we'll be here for a long time. I suggest we not do that, especially since there are only a few items in the house.

Fine.

You just--well, with respect to the carpet in the room--

With respect to the carpet.

--both the large carpet and the smaller area rug as well, you didn't observe any flecks of blood on that carpeting; isn't that right?

The areas I looked at, I did not.

And you did not observe any smears of blood on that carpet or on that rug; isn't that correct?

On the areas I looked at, I did not.

And nor did you observe any drop of blood at either of those locations, did you?

At the areas I looked at, no, I did not.

And in the areas that you looked at on that carpet and on that rug, did you observe any soil?

I can't remember if I saw soil or not.

Well, if you saw an unusual amount of soil--if you saw any soil at all, would it have been your standard practice to call that to Dennis Fung's attention?

It depends on what you regard as any amount. I mean carpet naturally has some dirt on it.

Did you see any soil as opposed to other types of debris on the rug or on the carpet when you inspected it on June 13th?

I do not believe so.

And you said that the one place that you actually saw a red stain was on the floor of the bathroom in the master bathroom; is that right?

That's correct.

And it was just a small faint smear, wasn't it?

It was small, yes.

Wasn't a drop. It was simply a smear; isn't that correct?

That is correct.

And you do not know or did not know at the time how long that faint smear of blood had been on that floor, do you?

I don't know, no.

Well, Miss Mazzola, have either you or any member of your family ever cut yourself shaving in the bathroom?

This is irrelevant, your Honor.

Sustained.

Miss Mazzola, based on your professional experience, do you find it unusual that you would see one small faint smear of blood on the floor of the bathroom?

Irrelevant. Calls for speculation.

Sustained. Is there any way to date blood samples that you find at scenes?

I--my experience, I don't know.

Move on.

Now, Miss Mazzola, when you returned to Rockingham that afternoon, you did collect several items of evidence; isn't that right?

That's right.

And it was your practice to write down on the field notes every item of evidence that you and Mr. Fung received; isn't that right?

Yes.

And it was the standard procedure at SID that you would record the collection of each item in the field notes at or about the time that the item was actually received; isn't that correct?

Yes.

And in fact, over the two days, June 13th and June 14th, you were asked to record the collection of approximately 50 or so items; isn't that correct?

I'm not sure exactly how many. Quite a few.

Well, could you look at your notes to refresh your recollection to see the approximate number of items that you collected during those two days?

Doesn't the evidence collection sheet speak for itself? The jury has seen it. We know it's a lot of items.

Right. I believe, your Honor, it's approximately 50, 55 items. And I didn't want to testify.

I agree. Do we need to have the time to have the witness sit here and count the number of items?

No.

Miss Mazzola, other than the blood vial belonging to Mr. Simpson, isn't it a fact that every other item was recorded over those two days contemporaneous to its being collected?

Except two items we recovered before we left Rockingham on that day.

You said except for two items?

Correct.

And what number were those two items?

Property items 15 and 16.

Well, in your field notes, did you make an entry that property items 15 and 16 were collected at 17--at approximately 1700 hours?

That is the entry, yes.

And did you make that entry in the afternoon while you were at Rockingham before you left Rockingham?

No.

When and where did you make those entries for items 15 and 16, Miss Mazzola?

Do you have an independent recollection of that?

It was at the laboratory the next day.

No. I'm asking you, do you have an independent recollection that it was at the laboratory the next day or did someone tell you or suggest to you that that's when it was?

It's my handwriting. That is the only time it could be.

Well, no. Miss Mazzola, your handwriting appears in these field notes as saying the time of collection was 1700 hours. By looking at your handwriting in those notes, you can't tell whether you made that entry at approximately 1700 hours on June 13th or the next day, can you?

It was not made on June 13th.

And how do you know that it was not made on June 13th?

Because our field notes were in the posse box which was locked in the back of the truck at the time.

Miss Mazzola, are you saying that you did not collect items 15 and 16 until after the--I'm sorry. What were the field notes on; a clipboard?

The posse box, yes. Clipboard.

Well, no, no, no. Is the posse box different than a clipboard?

It has a--it serves as a posse box and clipboard. There's a place to hold the papers on the outside.

All right. And are you saying that before you collected items 15 and 16, you had already put the posse box--put the posse box in the rear of the van and locked the van?

Yes.

And how do you know that items 15 and 16 were collected after the posse box was locked in the van as opposed to before?

Because our kits were also in the back of the truck that had our packaging material.

Miss Mazzola, your kits with your packaging material were locked in the box--I'm sorry. Your kits with your packaging material were locked in the rear of the van at the same time you locked the posse box in the rear of the van; is that correct?

That's correct.

And have you seen any videotape showing you walking to the van with your kit?

I've seen many videos, but I believe I've seen a few with us walking to the truck with the kits.

And when you're walking to the truck with kits, you're also walking with a posse box, correct?

I believe the posse box is also there, yes.

And on that videotape that you saw which showed you walking to the back of the van with those items, there was a time code on that tape; was there not?

I don't remember.

Well--

One moment, your Honor. Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to show the tape.

What item number?

That's what I'm trying to find.

Item 186, please. Your Honor, it may take a minute because I didn't anticipate it. I'm sorry.

Miss Mazzola, while he's getting that, just so I can back up a second, the reason you believe that the two entries of 1700 for items 15 and 16 were written the next day was because you believe that at the time you picked up 15 and 16, the posse box which contained the field notes was already locked in the van; is that correct?

That's correct.

And the reason you believe that the posse box was locked in the van at that particular time is because you saw a videotape of yourself locking the posse box in the van; isn't that correct?

I remember when we collected items 15 and 16 and what we packaged them in. That's why I know that we did not have our kits or the posse box with us.

Miss Mazzola, as you can best recall today, what were items 15 and 16 packaged in?

They were placed in a plastic garbage bag.

And, Miss Mazzola, on the field notes where it says "Packaged in," Did you write down what items 15 and 16 were packaged in?

No.

Thank you.

I'll show that portion of the tape.

Starting with 17:10:59.

Right. Okay. Could we stop there for a minute?

Now, Miss Mazzola, it's at this point that you locked your posse box with other items of evidence in the rear of the van; is that right?

That's right.

And it's already been stipulated to in this case that the time that you see on that videotape is in fact the correct time given or take--what was it--give or take 30 seconds. So that would mean that the time that you locked the posse box and the other items of evidence in your kit in the back of the van is approximately 1711. Would you agree, ma'am?

I agree.

So would you agree, ma'am, that the time of 1700 hours is approximately 11 minutes before you locked that posse box in the back of the van?

17 to 17:11, yes.

If they had been collected at 1700 hours, yes.

And 1700 hours, ma'am, is the time that you put down on your field notes, isn't it?

But, Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you don't even have an independent recollection of writing these entries the next day, but that you were relying on the fact that you must have written them the next day because the posse box at 1700 hours was locked in the back of the van. Isn't that correct?

This misstates the testimony.

Sustained. It's argumentative as well.

Just for the record, your Honor, I think the time should be noted that she's closing--locking the rear of the van at 17 hours, 11 minutes and 51 seconds.

Noted.

Now, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that except for the blood vial of Mr. Simpson, every item that you collected during those two days, June 13th and June 14th, was recorded in the order in which it was collected?

I believe there was an item of evidence that Detective Lange brought to the laboratory that might be out of order.

Well, when was it collected by the criminalist? Would that be on the morning of June 14th?

Let me double-check.

No showing of personal knowledge.

Overruled.

It was on the 14th.

And when you say it's not in sequence, you mean to say that in your original field notes, you recorded the sneakers as being received by the criminalist prior to the time that the criminalist received the blood vial of Mr. Simpson's blood; isn't that correct?

That is correct.

And other than that one switch that you've just described, were all other 50 or so items collected and recorded in--I'm sorry--recorded in your field notes in the order in which they were collected?

I believe so.

And isn't that one of the reasons that you carry the clipboard in the first place, so you can record the different items that you collect in the sequence in which you receive them?

It is just to give us a stable writing surface so we can write things down.

Well, I'm sorry. I don't mean the clipboard. I mean the field notes. Isn't that one of the reasons that you keep the field notes?

So we can write down what we collect and the measurements, things like that.

And also so you can record things in the field notes in the order in which you collect them; isn't that so?

Doesn't have to be in the actual order that we collect things, but just to keep track of things.

Well, weren't you taught at SID mini academy to record items of evidence sequentially as you collect them? Didn't they teach you that?

I don't believe that was ever brought out.

Is it just a coincidence that in your field notes that except for items 17 and 18, all the other items are recorded in the sequence in which they collect it?

It usually works out like that.

And if you don't have a clipboard handy when you receive an item of evidence, is it your procedure to record that item in the field notes at the first opportunity?

Yes.

You've been taught to do that, right?

Yes.

When it came time to leave Rockingham, the last items that you remember collecting were items 15 and 16; isn't that correct?

I collected one and Mr. Fung collected the other, yes.

Which of those two items did you collect and which did Mr. Fung collect?

I'll object to any more testimony to 15 and 16.

Just by the numbers. Miss Mazzola, just tell us which number.

All right, your Honor. I collected no. 16.

And 16 was collected on a bench just outside the door, correct?

Correct.

And it was not Mr. Simpson's vial of blood, was it?

No.

And item 15 was collected in a trash basket in a bathroom off the foyer of the house, wasn't it?

Correct.

And no. 15 was not a blood vial of Mr. Simpson's, was it?

No, it was not.

I would object to that line of questioning and move to strike.

Overruled.

Now, after you and Dennis Fung went out to load the truck with the posse box and the kits and the brown paper bags of items that you had collected, you and he went back inside for one last check to make sure that nothing had been left behind; isn't that right?

That was one of the reasons, yes.

On the way back inside the house, Miss Mazzola, did you observe Mr. Fung pick up the various photo id number cards that had been left on the driveway?

I remember from the videos him picking up the number cards.

But you don't have an independent recollection of it?

No. No.

And I believe that day in total you used more than a half dozen of those photo id cards in that driveway; isn't that right?

Let's see. Maybe not quite half a dozen.

Well, no. 5 was in the driveway, correct?

Correct.

6 was in the driveway, right?

Right.

7 and 8?

Right.

A, right?

A and b, correct.

B and c?

Correct.

8; is that correct?

I stand corrected, yes.

Okay. And these photo id cards that you used, you carry them or you store them in your black box, your kit box, don't you?

Yes.

So you can use them and recycle them, correct?

Correct.

And it's also your practice, is it not, to take your trash with you when you leave a scene?

Correct.

You don't leave it behind?

No.

And approximately within a half hour after you went back into Mr. Simpson's house, you left to return to SID headquarters, didn't you?

I--could be within half hour or so.

Well, did you look at the videotape which had the time code on it?

I might have. I didn't memorize the time.

And when you walked out the final time, you saw yourself on a videotape carrying a black trash bag; is that right?

It was a trash bag, yes.

And prior to your seeing that videotape, you did not have an independent recollection of your leaving carrying a black trash bag, did you?

No. I remember carrying a trash bag. I'm not sure of the color, but I remember carrying a trash bag.

You had a prior recollection--I'm sorry. You had an independent recollection of that prior to seeing the videotape?

Yes.

And as a basis for forming that prior recollection, did anyone suggest or remind you of the fact that you had been carrying a black trash bag out of the scene?

No. I remember carrying a trash bag out at the scene.

Independently?

Yes.

And when you carried that trash bag out of the scene, at any time did Mr. Fung ever say to you to be careful because it's glass?

Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Were you aware when you were carrying that trash bag that it contained breakable glass?

No.

Still calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

On the way back to the laboratory, did Dennis Fung ever say to you to make an entry in the field notes that you received a vial of Mr. Simpson's blood?

Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

May we have a sidebar, your Honor?

It's hearsay. Proceed.

And the clipboard--I'm sorry--the field notes that were locked in the posse box, when you got back to SID headquarters. They were removed with the items of evidence, weren't they?

Yes.

Everything was brought inside?

Yes.

And how does that posse box open?

It has just a simple clip.

Oh, it doesn't need a key?

No.

All right.

Miss Mazzola, how much later after you went back into Rockingham for the second time was it before you collected items 15 and 16 approximately?

When we went back the second time--

When I say the second time, ma'am, just so I can clear this up for you, I don't mean returning at 3 o'clock or 3:15. I mean you went out to the truck with your posse box and kit and then you went right back in for one last check.

Right.

After you went in for that one last check, how much time passed before you collected item 15?

Item 15 was--I'm not sure which one.

Do you have a note that indicates how long it was after you returned for one last check before you picked item 15?

No. I was just making sure which item was item 15.

Oh, okay.

I picked up item 16 on our way in and Mr. Fung I believe picked up item 15 within a couple of minutes of that.

When you got back to the lab from Rockingham, did you make any entry in your field notes to indicate that you had or Mr. Fung had collected a vial of blood?

No.

And your field notes were with you at that point in time, weren't they?

Yes.

Now, when you got back to the SID laboratory earlier that evening, would you agree that the most time-consuming matter for you was the removal of the little swatches with bloodstains and having them transferred into test tubes?

That's correct.

And what did you do with the other brown paper bags that contained the items that had been collected?

They were placed on one of the tables in the evidence processing room.

And were simply left there as brown paper bags?

Yes.

And is it SID standard procedure for storing wet stains over night to allow them to dry in a cardboard box?

They are put into a cabinet for drying, yes.

Well, in that cabinet, they're placed in a cardboard box; isn't that right?

That is correct.

And is it the standard procedure at SID that when you receive a test tube of whole blood to refrigerate it as soon as is practicable?

I personally have never received a tube of blood like that.

But you have been taught things at the SID mini academy, haven't you?

Yes, but I can't remember what they said about a tube of blood.

As you sit here today, you have no recollection whether in all of those lectures at the SID mini academy anyone ever said to you you should refrigerate a vial of blood as quickly as practicable?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

I can't remember if it was brought up. It could have been brought up. I don't remember.

Had anyone taught you at the SID mini academy that it was okay to leave a vial of whole blood in a trash can on a counter overnight?

Irrelevant.

Assumes facts--assumes facts not in evidence.

Your Honor, that's Mr. Fung's testimony.

In a trash can?

In a trash bag I said. And if I said trash can, I stand corrected and I withdraw the question and I'll rephrase the question.

Please.

Was it--had you been taught by anyone at the SID mini academy that it was okay to store a vial of whole blood in a trash bag on a counter in an unrefrigerated capacity overnight?

I don't believe that was brought up.

In fact, the first time that the blood vial of Mr. Simpson is recorded in your notes is the next morning, June 14th; isn't that right?

I believe it was sometime the next day.

Do you know if it was the morning or the afternoon?

I--I'm not sure which one it was.

Do you have any independent recollection as to when it was?

No, I do not.

Isn't it true that it was not--that the blood vial was not recorded by you until after you were told about the sneakers that Detective Lange had dropped off at the SID laboratory?

That is correct.

And thus, it was at that point in time that you made the notations in the field notes identifying the tennis sneakers as item 17; isn't that correct?

They were recorded in the notes, yes.

And it's at that point in time after you were told about the sneakers that you were then told about Mr. Simpson's blood vial; isn't that right?

Still calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Isn't it true that you then recorded--after you recorded the sneakers as item 17, that you then recorded the blood vial of Mr. Simpson as item 18?

That's correct.

And the reason that you recorded it in that sequence at that time is, at that point in time, it was your understanding, was it not, that item 17 had been collected prior to item 18?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

The tennis shoes were brought to my attention first. So I recorded it first.

Ma'am, didn't you also say a little while ago that it was your practice whenever possible to record items as they are collected sequentially?

As much as possible, yes.

Right. And so when you received these items, the reason you recorded no. 17 as the sneakers and no. 18 as the blood vial is because at that point in time, it was your state of mind that no. 18 was received by SID after the sneakers?

Now, I think you said earlier or we agreed earlier, I don't recall which, that there were more than 50 items collected on the 13th and 14th by you and/or Dennis Fung; is that right?

I believe we agreed on that, yes.

I believe that is correct, yes.

Now, on August 23rd, 1994, you testified at a hearing in this case, didn't you?

I believe it was sometime in August, yes.

And you swore to tell the truth at that hearing?

Yes.

And at that hearing, in sum and substance, Miss Mazzola, did you testify that you never saw Vannatter transfer the reference sample of Mr. Simpson's blood at any time after 5:00 P.M. on June 13th?

I would ask for page and lines cited.

Sustained.

Well, when you testified on August 23rd, didn't you swear that the last item of evidence collected while you were still at Mr. Simpson's home--

Excuse me, counsel. Page and line.

762.

762, what line, counsel?

Line 8 through line 11 bearing in mind the Court's instructions.

Your Honor, I object to this. It's not inconsistent with anything the witness just testified to.

Sustained.

Well, isn't it true that the last item that--

Your Honor, I believe that this was gone into on direct examination, reading this testimony.

No. No. I'm sustaining the objection under 770 1335.

Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that the last item that was picked up at Rockingham that day was item no. 16?

The last item that I remember personally being picked up was item 16, yes.

And I believe you said that if an item is picked up by someone else and then given to you, you would also record that in the field notes, correct?

Correct.

You didn't simply record those items that you personally observed the collection of; isn't that correct?

That is correct.

And isn't it true, ma'am, that from the time you collected item 16 until the time you ultimately left Rockingham to return to SID, that you and Fung were standing together the entire time?

No.

Well, on August 23rd--

Referring to page 762, your Honor.

Line 24.

Beginning at line 24. That's correct.

Proceed.

Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers back on August 23rd at a hearing in this case? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up the last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." On August 23rd, you were asked that question and you gave that answer, didn't you?

Yes.

And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?

To the best I remembered, yes.

Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?

I said there I believe so, yes.

And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?

I believe I was, yes.

Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?

It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.

One moment, your Honor.

And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?

At that time, no.

And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?

No.

Was there any discussion, Miss Mazzola, in the laboratory about the fact that the television was reporting DNA test results on socks prior to the actual testing?

Sustained.

To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola--

Excuse me. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.

To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, was anyone in the laboratory being investigated in connection with any alleged leaks?

Sustained.

Irrelevant.

As early as November 1994, Miss Mazzola, was there a concern in the laboratory about allegations that there had been tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood?

Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

Overruled.

I do not remember if there was a concern over tampering with the sample.

Well, had there been discussion among the lab people at SID with regard to an allegation of tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood?

That's hearsay.

I'm offering it for her state of mind, your Honor.

It's hearsay, counsel. It's also irrelevant at this point.

Miss Mazzola, you testified that you had discussed this case with several people in the laboratory; is that right?

Not only discussed. Just watched a bit of TV or listened to the radio a bit.

Well, didn't you testify on cross-examination last week that you discussed your involvement in this case with Michelle Kestler, your boss at SID?

She more or less wanted to give me pointers on how to communicate. She did not tell me what to say or how to say it.

Did you discuss with her the facts of your alleged involvement in this case?

I object to the word "Alleged."

Sustained.

Did you discuss with her the nature or fact--did you discuss with her the nature of your involvement in this case?

Not really.

It's your recollection that the only thing you discussed with Miss Kestler were pointers on how to conduct yourself on the witness stand?

To the best I remember, yes.

You have no recollection of discussing with her the substance of your involvement in this case?

No.

Well, you said that on one occasion I believe as recently as April of 1995, you discussed this case with Miss Kestler, Mr. Yamauchi and Mr. Matheson; is that correct?

We had a short meeting, yes.

And was that meeting simply to discuss pointers on how to conduct yourself on the witness stand?

Yes.

It didn't have any discussion at all--I'm sorry. It didn't include any discussion at all about the extent of your actual involvement in the case?

No.

Isn't it true that you had a discussion about this case in the presence--about the actual involvement in this case in the presence of Michelle Kestler back in November of 1994?

I can't remember what happened back in November of `94.

Well, Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that on November 22nd, 1994, you discussed this case, your involvement in this case in the presence of Michelle Kestler and in the presence of two detective investigators from the District Attorney's office? Isn't that a fact?

There was a meeting, yes. I'm not sure of the date.

And at that meeting with Miss Kestler and the two detectives, you discussed your involvement in this case, didn't you?

Your Honor, I object to this. We're at the noon recess, but I would like a sidebar.

Objection sustained at this point.

May we break now for lunch, your Honor?

I thought you were about to finish.

No, I'm not.

How much more do you have?

On this subject, I have approximately 10 minutes and--15 minutes and then I'm going into the other matter for which we're waiting for certain items.

What's your time estimate?

I'm sorry?

What is your time estimate on that?

That will take--the last portion of my examination will take I believe less than one hour.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. See you back here at 1:30. Miss Mazzola, you are excused until 1:30. All right. All right. I would like to see co-lead counsel in chambers, please.