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. Miss Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand now undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Goldberg.
Now, Miss Mazzola, are you part of some kind of police conspiracy involving a number of people to frame the Defendant in this case?
Okay. Are you a part of some sort of cover-up to cover up for Dennis Fung who is allegedly covering up for people who are allegedly engaged some kind of a conspiracy?
All right. Now, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the discussions that you've had with me before your testimony. Can you tell us in general terms what the nature of the discussions were?
Did I want to know details, a lot of details about evidence collection and the activities that you were engaged in on the 13th and 14th?
Generally what occurred on the 13th, 14th. Basically our background, just general information.
And did anyone at all, anyone from the laboratory, anyone from law enforcement, friends, family members, friends, family members, anyone, ever try to put any pressure on you to change your testimony or alter your testimony in any way?
Did you ever get the idea that someone wanted you to change or alter your testimony in any way?
Now, I want to ask you a few questions about the collection procedures at Rockingham and Bundy. And first of all, as a criminalist, what all does the issue of collection involve?
Collection includes the documentation, the photography, sketches, measurements, the brief descriptions we make of the item we are picking up, and then physically picking up the item itself, packaging it.
As I believe counsel pointed out on cross-examination, could you even include the packaging phase in that collection process as well?
All right. Now, in terms of who physically picked up which pieces of evidence, did you believe that there was any relevance to that when you were at the scenes on the 13th?
At the time no, we didn't believe that it mattered which one of us picked up which item.
Okay. Now, was there any other criminalist who was out there, either at the Bundy location or the Rockingham location, that was collecting evidence other than yourself and Mr. Fung?
When I say "Collecting" I mean physically picking things up or were you two doing that?
Was there one item, item 10--I don't know if you know this--do you know who collected item no. 10, that was a plastic bag, a blue plastic bag, at the Rockingham location?
Okay. But respect to items no. 1 through 9 at Rockingham, did you and Mr. Fung pick those up physically?
And then when you came back to the Rockingham location, 11 through 16, did you physically pick up those from the location, you and Mr. Fung?
Objection, your Honor, as to Mr. Fung. I would simply ask that the witness be asked what she did or what he did, but not "You" collectively.
And with respect to the blood stains at Bundy, were all of those picked up by either you or Mr. Fung?
All right. And had you ever been told or received any training to the effect that it was important or necessary to specify who did the physical picking up of an item?
So as far as you were concerned, it was an issue that was left to the discretion of the criminalist?
Now, you testified at some point at a hearing that we referred to as a Griffen hearing in August of last year?
And at that hearing you said that you hadn't had time to prepare yourself for the testimony that you were going to give?
All right. Now, had you been thinking about this case between the 13th or let's say between the 14th and the time that you testified at the Griffen hearing?
When you arrived at the Rockingham location had you ever heard of someone named Orenthal Simpson commonly known as O.J. Simpson?
You didn't have any conception that there was a sports figure or a television personality or movie personality that went by that name when you arrived at the scene?
When did you first become aware that Orenthal Simpson was someone of public notoriety?
Mr. Fung, after he was done with the detectives, he came and kept saying, "O.J.'s house, it is Mr. Simpson's house." And I said, "O.J. Who?" And he said, "Movies, sports," and it just did not ring a bell.
KEY QUOTEDo you have some special interest in this case over and above any other case that you have handled as a criminalist?
Now, after the Griffen hearing you said that you and Mr. Fung got together and tried to go through who collected what physically; is that correct?
Because it appeared that it would become an issue about who physically picked up what.
Had anyone else ever told you that they thought it was an issue, other than what you gathered from the Defense?
When you and Mr. Fung were going through this information, were you trying to gather information that the Defense seemed to be interested in?
At that time did you personally think that it was relevant yourself, as opposed to simply thinking the Defense was interested in it?
Sorry. Personally I didn't see if it really mattered, but apparently it did to the Defense.
All right. The apparently part that it mattered to the Defense is stricken. The jury is to disregard this as being nonresponsive. Proceed.
Now, you said that you looked at some materials after the Griffen hearing in order to refresh your recollection. Were any of those materials photographs?
And how did the still photographs help you in any way to refresh your recollection that you looked at after the Griffen hearing?
It brought back what the scene actually looked like, where things were, what the whole area was like.
Okay. Now, in your experience do you tend to remember things better when they are written down or when they are presented to you visually?
Okay. And when you were going through the materials with Mr. Fung, for example, and you were directing your attention to stain 47, for instance, did you have a set of photographs in front of you to try to look and see what stain 47 looked like?
Now, when you were having this session with Mr. Fung, did you come to the conclusion that with respect to stain 52, which you've testified was the last stain in the driveway in Bundy, did you come to any conclusion with respect to that stain as to whether or not Mr. Fung was present when it was physically collected?
At that point at that meeting I was not sure if Mr. Fung had been present or not.
Was it at some point after that meeting that you came to the conclusion that he was not present during that stain, the physical collection?
And was there any reason in your mind why you would possibly think that it would be helpful to the Prosecution or helpful to you in your testimony--
--to testify that Mr. Fung was not present during the physical collection stain of 52?
And you have testified to that because to the best of your recollection that is what happened?
All right. Now, you said that as to the stains at Rockingham you started the physical collection with Mr. Fung at 9:00 A.M.; is that correct?
Did you have to go through any other steps in the collection process prior to that time when the physical collection took place?
And what steps were those that you went through prior to the physical collection?
The area had to be photographed, it had to be sketched, it had to be measured, then we wrote all this down in our notes, the measurements, a brief description, and then it was physically collected.
And did do you all of that measuring and photoing and documenting before any of the stains were physically collected that--other than the Bronco stain?
And in terms of the collection process, which would you say takes more time between the physical collection of the stains at Rockingham and the documentation phase of the collection process?
Now, I wanted to read a portion of the Griffen hearing, your Honor. It is at page 723.
At the Griffen hearing do you recall testifying to the following questions? "Question: With respect to item no. 6, did you collect that blood? "Answer: Yes. "Question: By the way, you said that for some of these specimens you were observed by Mr. Fung. When you say you were observed, do you mean that he was collecting stains in the same vicinity as you so he could see basically what you were doing? Is that what you mean by `observing'? "Answer: On the stains that were collected in the driveway, we were working side-by-side. "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side, do you mean that he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Answer: Yes." Do you recall giving those answers to the questions that I just read?
And when you were saying that you were working side-by-side, what did you mean to convey by working side-by-side?
Objection, your Honor. The testimony speaks to itself. I don't know if she can interpret it.
That we physically were both there at the same item at the same time. Either one of us was physically collecting it and bagging it, or the other person was helping, passing items that we need.
And to your recollection, when you were physically doing swatching at Rockingham on the stains that you were referring to in that testimony, was Mr. Fung kneeling down, as opposed to standing up?
On some of the items he took a few swatches himself to collect a little more blood.
And to your recollection, at the Griffen hearing did anyone ever ask for greater clarification as to what you meant by working side-by-side?
Did anyone ever ask you at the Griffen hearing to explain what you meant specifically by the phrase "Working side-by-side"?
So the only follow-up question was. "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side you mean he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Yes."
Was the only question you were asked, if I may read the question and answer-- "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side, do you mean he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Answer: Yes." --to your recollection?
Now, at this point in time, with respect to stains no. 4, 5 and 6, do you specifically recall for each one of those stains specifically which swatches Mr. Fung may have taken, as opposed to which swatches you may have taken?
Okay. And at the time that you were taking those swatches, did you believe that it was important to recall exactly which swatches Mr. Fung did as opposed to which swatches you did?
At this time I would like to take a look at the evidence collection boards. I think it is 172.
Now, Miss Mazzola, I want to ask you some questions about these boards that counsel didn't want to ask you about.
Let me ask you about some other items here, Miss Mazzola. Now, with respect to the socks, item no. 13, can you see this on the board?
Now, with respect to this item, does that say "Fung and Mazzola" this is the socks, no. 13?
And in terms of the physical collection on item no. 13, who did the physical collection on that?
And did you work in a situation where for some reason he took like the ankle and you took the toe and you both put the same sock into the bag?
And on the property reports that were generated in connection with this case, does it indicate that item no. 13 was collected by Fung and Mazzola?
Do they indicate that the item reflected on this chart, let's say, 16 through 23, were in fact collected by Mazzola?
Now, with respect to item no. 13, did you in fact participate in aspects of the collection procedure in terms of measuring and documenting and that sort of thing?
Okay. Now, with respect to item no. 23, do you know whether that is an item that comes from the Bronco or would you have to refer to documentation to confirm that?
Okay. And on this board does it indicate that item no. 23 was collected by Fung and Mazzola?
And does that indicate that it was collected by Fung and Mazzola or Fung and Mazzola?
I was passing him the supplies he needed, holding the flashlight, helping measure, do the sketches, did the brief descriptions of the items, whatever he needed.
And in terms of the physical collection on no. 9, who did the physical collection on that?
And did you participate in any way in the documentation and other aspects of the collection procedure with respect to no. 9?
I would like to ask you about stains 55 and 56. Can you tell us which stains those were?
Yes. Those were stains that were collected from the shoeprints that were at Bundy.
And on the property reports who did they indicate was responsible for collecting these items at Bundy?
Now, Miss Mazzola, I would like to turn to another issue at Rockingham, the Rockingham location, and that is the crime scene identification checklist. Now, you said that you wrote your name in the column that says "Officer in charge"?
Now, did you somehow let that designation go to your head and run around the crime scene telling people that you were the officer in charge and ordering people around and the like?
And could it have affected your performance in terms of the way that you swatched stains at the Rockingham location?
Hold it. I'm sorry. Sustained. It is speculative, but the answer that it is in pencil, the jury can figure that out for themselves. The jury is to disregard that last question and answer.
Were you ever at any time trying to downplay or minimize your involvement at the crime scene?
Now, in the foyer area of the Rockingham location do you recall seeing any other drops in that location other than the three that were collected as stain 12?
Okay. And with respect to those three drops that were collected as stain 12, who decided to collect them as a single stain, single item?
Now, you were asked whether you could see or you saw any blood on the banister. Do you recall that?
Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is exhibit 201.
Miss Mazzola, directing your attention to the photograph that has been marked People's 201, does that appear to be the banister that leads up to the foyer area of the Rockingham location?
And would it have been difficult to see little flakes or specks of blood on that banister?
How easy would it have been for you to have seen tiny little flakes or flecks of blood on that banister?
With respect to the coloration that dried blood typically has, with your experience, how does it compare to the banister?
And would you expect to see the same degree of contrast of specks of blood on the banister as off a white wall, say?
Now, with respect to the stain on item no. 11, what side of the house was that collected from?
Was that the same side of the house where the glove no. 9 was collected by Mr. Fung?
I'm not asking for any test result, but what did you physically do when you were collecting from that area?
I took a control from an area as far away from that area where the stain was supposed to be. I swabbed the area, took swatches of the area that contained the stain area.
Now, in the afternoon, when you left the Rockingham location, did you have a plastic trash bag in your hand when you left for the last time?
And did you have an independent recollection of that prior to seeing a videotape that depicted that scene?
Now, you said that at some point you figured out that the package that contained the vial of blood was in the plastic trash bag; is that correct?
The bag was on the table and it contained the two items that I remembered that Mr. Fung and myself had collected and the gray envelope was also there.
Did you think that there was any significance, up to that period of time, exactly what transpired with respect to that blood vial between the time that it was received and the time that you saw it on the morning of the 14th?
Physically open the vials, take samples out, work with the samples, handle the sample.
Did you ever do any handling of the blood vial sample in this case in that sense?
And when is it that you documented in the crime scene identification checklist those two items?
Because our notes were locked in the back of the truck when we left Rockingham for the last time and didn't have a chance to do it at that time.
Why didn't you document those when you got back to the laboratory on the evening of the 13th?
So then with respect to items 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, when was the documentation on those items done in the crime scene identification checklist?
Where did the five o'clock time period come from with respect to the collection on 15 and 16?
That was the time that I had thought that we had collected those two items, 15 and 16.
And at the time the Griffen hearing, did you believe that you had left shortly after five o'clock?
One was from videotapes and another was from the envelope that contained the blood sample from Mr. Simpson.
What was on the envelope that caused you to believe that you hadn't left shortly after 5:00?
Now, perhaps we could see the exhibit that has been marked as People's 186 for identification, starting with the scene where Miss Mazzola is leaving the location.
Now, at 17:11:53 you are putting the items that you had collected and your collection kits back in the vehicle?
If you could just take a look at the package that Mr. Fung is holding in his hand. I know you have seen it before. Maybe we can stop for a second.
Now, with respect to the package that Mr. Fung was holding in his hands, was that consistent with any other item that you collected or Mr. Fung collected in your presence at the Rockingham location after 5:11?
So just to be more specific, without telling us what they were, is that item consistent with 15 or 16?
For the record--I'm sorry, your Honor. For the record, I stopped just after we had finished the two sequences of Mr. Fung in the foyer.
Now, Miss Mazzola, with respect to the package that we have previously asked you about, the trash bag, is the heft of that bag consistent with 15, 16, or the little cards that were contained in the driveway, the photo i.d. Cards?
Objection, your Honor. The picture speaks for itself. I don't know if she is qualified to comment on the heft of the bag.
Objection, your Honor. Move to strike. That is not heft now. We are talking about describing form.
And is this the sequence where you are walking out of what appears to be the gate area that leads up into the Rockingham driveway?
Now, in terms of weight, when you were carrying the bag, did the weight appear to be consistent with only 15, 16, and the little cards?
It appeared to be a little heavier, but at the time I didn't think much about it.
KEY QUOTEDid you think that it--did you have any reason to believe this was going to be of any importance whatsoever later on?
Your Honor, can--perhaps before I can ask my next series of questions, we can approach to clarify the scope of the permissible questioning.
Because we were working as a team.
Mr. Fung, after he was done with the detectives, he came and kept saying, 'O.J.'s house, it is Mr. Simpson's house.' And I said, 'O.J. Who?' And he said, 'Movies, sports,' and it just did not ring a bell.
No, they are all important.
It appeared to be a little heavier, but at the time I didn't think much about it.