Now, I would like to turn to the Bundy crime scene. You were asked about a white object on Mr. Goldman. Do you recall seeing any white object on Mr. Goldman?
When you were asked about a white object by the Defense, is that what you were referring to?
And when you say "Coroner's sheet," can you describe that a little bit more for us? What is it?
Okay. Now, you were asked about trace evidence in connection with the cap--the hat and did you examine those items at all at the scene to see whether they had trace evidence?
Do you examine evidence--items at the scene, before you collect them, for the purpose of seeing whether they have trace or biological evidence?
Biological evidence such as blood for the most part you can readily see. Trace evidence, you wouldn't be able to really see it.
But do you try to attempt a close physical examination of the items, such as the glove and the cap, prior to collecting them?
Now, I would like to give you a hypothetical. If you assumed, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that the cap had hairs and fibers on it, the hairs being consistent with the Defendant, and a Bronco fiber--a fiber being consistent with the Bronco, but that the glove did not have any such items of trace evidence on it, then would the fact that you did not change gloves in between those items have had any effect in terms of contaminating the glove?
Would there have been any significance to not changing the gloves between the cap the glove?
The ground is that it is an inappropriate question for this particular witness based upon her expertise.
You have been trained--you received some training at SID in terms of the unintentional transfer of trace evidence; is that correct?
And you said that you did not change gloves between the cap the glove; is that correct?
Now, based upon your training and what you have been told at the SID academy, would there be any problem for contamination or cross-contamination if the hat contained hair and Bronco fiber, fiber consistent with the Bronco, but the glove did not contain that kind of trace evidence?
Now, when you were looking at the snippet of videotape showing the item being passed between yourself and Mr. Fung, what color did this item appear to be?
Now, when you had that item in front of you, I believe it was the item no. 39, the eyeglass envelope, it was unpackaged, did Mr. Neufeld attempt to touch the glasses with his bare hands?
And when you saw the bindle that was contained in that item--maybe I can have that. I think it is exhibit no. 39.
When you saw the bindle that was contained in that item, was that a bindle that either you or Mr. Fung created?
To your knowledge is there anyone by the name of Henry Lee that works at the laboratory?
Just so there is no ambiguity, when I was talking about the bindles, can you point out for us what items constitute the bindles?
And to your knowledge are items of evidence at SID made available for inspection and testing even by the Defense?
Do you have any personal knowledge of everything that happened to this eyeglass envelope between the time that it was booked and the time that you saw it on the witness stand?
You said that you took a look at the glasses that were inside of the envelope when you were back at the laboratory?
Can you describe for us specifically how you did it, how you did that mechanically?
The envelope was not securely sealed and through the opening I could see a pair of glasses.
When you were looking at it, through what part of the envelope were you looking at it?
How narrow was the slit through which you were looking at this item in the envelope?
Was it enough so that you could take a close inventory of the condition of the glasses?
And did you notice at that time specifically whether the glasses were intact or not?
Now, going back to some of the training issues that were brought up, when you were receiving your academic training in the college level, university level, did you receive any academic training in the area of crime scene investigation?
One was taken at a community college and the other was taken at Sacramento State University.
Now, what was the nature of this training? Was it hands-on or was the more textbook theoretical kind of training?
All right. Then you said that after you went to LAPD you went through what you've referred to as the mini academy?
And was the nature of that training more academic and textbook-oriented or more hands-on?
Can you describe for us the kind of things that you went through in this hand-on training at the SID mini academy?
We learned how to take hair samples from suspects or victims, proper packaging of said items. We learned how to collect blood off of different substrates. We learned how to cast shoeprints out in dirt which sometimes you have to do at scenes. We were taken out and we cast tire tracks. We were given demonstrations on interpreting tire tracks, their direction.
Now, when you were doing like a tire track impression, did you do that inside the laboratory or at some outside location?
Well, you were asked where these meetings took place. Did all of these meetings take place inside the laboratory?
It is an area where we have a small kitchen. It adjoins our library slash meeting room slash training room.
Is the library slash meeting room slash training room the area where these meetings took place, the ones that were inside?
And do you think that the fact that there is a kitchen area adjoining that meeting room somehow caused you not to learn how to collect blood stains as well as if it had taken place in a conference room?
This meeting slash conference slash library room, is it directly adjoining the area that is the kitchen? Is it in the same physical space?
Okay. Do you think that somehow the presence of the microwave and the refrigerator caused you not to learn how to collect blood strains as well?
Do you think that maybe if this had occurred in a separate building you would have learned how to collect blood stains or other kind of evidence better than if it occurred at the SID facility?
Do you think that if you had learned this in a dormitory type setting where they didn't allow you to go home between settings--sessions--
Now, you said that you had a temporary job at Kern County D.A.'S Office Crime Lab?
It was what they called extra help criminalist. It was a temporary position and I was glad to get the job.
And when you said that it was a temporary position, did they have funding for a full-time position?
And for how long was it that you--that you were hired when you were initially hired in this temporary position?
Well, before my nine months were up they said they had funding for me to come back for another nine months, if I was still interested in the job.
Is it your experience that the leading crime laboratories generally want people that have some previous experience in order to get a job?
The majority of laboratories were looking for people with some experience in the field.
Then you said that you got a job at valley toxicology, I think; is that correct?
Well, I had taken the test for LAPD a couple of years prior to starting at valley toxicology, but I had heard of the budget problems so I didn't think anything about it until I received a call asking me if I was still interested in a permanent full-time position as a criminalist with the LAPD.
And when you heard that the--they had funding now for a position, did you decide to join LAPD, their crime lab?
Because it was a permanent criminalist position. LAPD had a good reputation and--
Your Honor, I was going to move on to another topic now. I don't know whether the Court wanted to break, it is four o'clock, or continue.
No one by that name works at the laboratory.
He made a move toward them, yes.
Advised him it wouldn't be a wise idea.
No, you wouldn't be able to really see it.
It was not a job I wanted to stay at for the next thirty years.