Thank you.

Now, after you left Rockingham for the second time, you said you returned to your offices at piper tech; is that right?

Back to the laboratory, yes.

And that you would be arriving about 6:30?

Somewhere around there.

And you brought all the evidence that had been collected that day into the evidence processing unit?

Correct.

And there are two entrances to that unit; are there not?

Yes.

One is a door for which you need an id card to get in and out of?

Correct.

And the second entrance is a garage door; is that right?

It is a roll-up door, yes.

And, for instance, if I were to enter the evidence processing unit with you and you put up your card to gain access, I would not have to put up my card to go in with you, would I?

No, you would not.

And if once inside, someone opened that roll-up door, then other people could come and go from the evidence processing unit through that large door which is big enough for a car or truck; is that right?

Correct.

Compound.

Overruled.

Now, you said that when you got back to the evidence processing unit, the items were taken out of the coin envelopes for drying; is that right?

Correct.

And if they were still wet when they were taken out of the plastic bags, then there would be transfer stains on those plastic bags; is that right?

Yes.

Did you preserve the plastic bags?

No.

Were you trained to throw them out?

Yes.

By the way, did you or Dennis Fung save the black plastic trash bag that you were seen carrying items out of Rockingham that afternoon?

No, I do not believe so.

And you said that you and Mr. Fung began to put the wet swatches into the test tubes; is that right?

Correct.

And are the test tubes marked at that point?

They were--we marked them, yes.

And the test tube was then put back in the same little brown coin envelope; is that right?

Correct, corresponding to its item number.

And you do that because the original coin envelope contains the markings to enable you to identify the swatches you collected from other drops at different scenes?

They correspond to the item numbers that are also written on the test tubes.

And I believe it's your testimony under direct examination that at least with respect to some of the bloodstains, you personally removed the swatches from the plastic bags and put them into test-tubes; isn't that right?

On a few of them, yes.

And you processed that evening both the Rockingham and Bundy items at the same evidence processing unit?

Correct.

Did you place--I'm sorry. Did you place a sheet of paper on the table before you began to transfer the swatches from the plastic bags to the test tubes?

I don't remember if we did or not. We might have.

Did you receive any training at the SID mini academy on the necessity of placing a sheet of paper on the laboratory counter before working with the different items?

For Mr. Fung's procedure, the swatches and envelopes were not in contact with the table.

For the procedure that you utilized, Miss Mazzola, didn't you have to actually use an item to scoop things out of the plastic bag?

I used a pipe--glass--glass pipette to move the swatches into the mouth of the test tube.

Okay. And haven't you been taught to put down some paper just for safety precautions just to avoid an accident of a wet bloody swatch falling onto the table?

The swatches were never where they could fall on the table.

Was this exercise done over a table?

Yes.

And did you wear a pair of gloves for the removal of the swatches from the plastic bags?

I did, yes.

And did you wear the glass for the same reason that you wore the gloves at the crime scene; namely as a safety precaution for yourself?

It's just a force of habit to wear the gloves.

And so do you have any independent recollection as to changing your gloves between the handling of each item that evening?

Independent recollection, no, I don't recall.

And the samples from both locations, that is Rockingham and Bundy, were processed in the same room at the same time; is that correct?

I was working at a different table than Mr. Fung, and after a few, I just started labeling the test tubes for him.

Well, when you started working at a different table, were you working on the samples from Rockingham or Bundy as opposed to Dennis Fung working on samples from the other location?

We worked on samples from the same location.

And then the samples from both locations are then laid out on a carton; is that right?

Correct.

And you lay them out on the bottom of this carton until the bottom is covered with envelopes; is that right?

Not completely covered, no.

Well, you mean you left some space?

There had to be some space left, yes.

And you said all the Bundy bloodstains were put into a brown shopping bag back at Bundy; is that right?

A brown paper bag, yes.

And a brown paper bag was used for the Rockingham samples as well; is that right?

Correct.

When--

One moment.

Did you watch Dennis Fung do his procedure after you stopped doing yours?

I wasn't watch him constantly.

Well, were you watching him some of the time?

Some of the time, yes.

Did you ever see when he would--he actually would take a test tube and scoop it right into the plastic bag to scoop out the individual swatches? Is that how he did it?

He maneuvered the swatches from the outside of the bag rather than place anything in the bag itself.

Well, the swatches were still wet, weren't they?

Not necessarily wet wet. Slightly damp, yes.

Well, some were sticking to the sides of the plastic bag?

A few, yes.

And to get those--those swatches that are sticking to the plastic bag, did he use the tube to sort of scoop them out?

No. He would manipulate the plastic bag itself to move the swatches down.

Is it possible that when he did this, that blood would sometimes collect on the outside lip of the test tube?

Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

When the test tube is then placed into the coin envelope, is the lip of the test tube sticking out?

Yes.

And the envelope itself is left open in the carton; is it not?

Yes.

Has anyone at the SID taught you that when the blood--that when blood on the test tube or on the lip of the test tube dries, it can flake or aerosol?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Have you ever been taught anything about the dangers of or the possibility--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Have you received any training at all about potential contamination which can occur as the blood dries in those test tubes when the envelope is left open?

Still assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled. Have you receive such training?

No.

And you left these envelopes in the carton in a cabinet in the room, correct?

Correct.

The cabinet's not locked, is it?

No.

And when you left for the evening, did you take the clipboard--I'm sorry--the clipboard with the field notes home with you?

No.

Did you leave them on the table at the evidence processing unit so you would have them out the next day?

They were left in the evidence processing room.

Now, the next day, you arrived at the evidence processing unit at about 6:52 in the morning, didn't you?

I don't recall the exact time I showed up.

One moment, your Honor.

Certainly.

Madam reporter, till 4:00 for a break?

Let me check my notes, see what was introduced into evidence.

Just one moment, your Honor.

Can we proceed with something else, Mr. Neufeld?

It's conceivable it could be 194-a. It's a printout, your Honor.

Mrs. Robertson, 194-a? I'm sorry.

Well, Miss Mazzola, while they're looking for it, whatever time it was on the morning of June 14th, it was early; was it not?

I believe so, yes.

Okay. And you left the laboratory around 10:30 to go to the print shed with Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco; is that correct?

Yes.

And would it be fair to say that you were at the laboratory that morning before leaving to go to the print shed for three or three and a half hours?

About, yes.

And when you testified--I'm sorry.

One moment.

Miss Mazzola, I simply show you, see if it refreshes your recollection as to what time you arrived, Defense exhibit no. 1100.

What is 1100? What is 1100, Mr. Neufeld?

What is it?

What is it?

It is a computer printout.

Next question.

Okay. And when you arrived that morning on the 14th, didn't you and Dennis Fung participate in removing the swatches from the test tubes?

Correct.

And didn't you and Dennis Fung make a visual inspection of the swatches to assure that they were dry?

Yes.

And didn't you and Dennis Fung at that point separate the item numbers both on Bundy and Rockingham and then proceeded to make bindles?

The bindles for the most part Mr. Fung was working on. I was filling in the DR number and the item number that he was assigning.

Miss Mazzola, didn't you personally prepare, that is, create bindles on the morning of June 14th--

We'll have to get a bucket of water for those things. Proceed.

Miss Mazzola, this is a paper bindle; is it not?

Yes, it is.

And you create these bindles by simply folding up a piece of white paper into different sections; is that right?

Yes.

And then once you fold up this piece of paper, you then put the swatches inside and then you fold it closed, and that's how you hold the swatches; is that correct?

Correct.

Isn't it a fact that on the morning of June 14th, that you personally created these bindles for some of the items of evidence, for some of the stains in this case and put swatches in them?

For a few of them, yes.

And when you--there was no particular way--I'm sorry. There was no particular assignment, was there, where you would only do certain select stains and he would do other stains, was there?

No.

I mean, it was broken up pretty randomly?

We were not assigned which stains to do.

All right. And all you did that day is, you and Dennis Fung simply divided up the test tubes containing these swatches and performed these tests at different tables in the same room; isn't that right?

Objection to tests.

Overruled.

What?

Overruled. Actually no. Sustained. It's not tests.

Test tubes I said, didn't I?

No. You said tests.

I apologize.

In fact, what happened on August--what happened on June 14th is that you and Dennis Fung simply divided up the test tubes containing the swatches and began to process them?

I started processing, as I said, a few and then after a few, Mr. Fung was much faster and I started helping him.

When you testified on August 23rd, did you ever limit your involvement in this case to simply a few?

Your Honor, that's improper impeachment, hearsay.

Sustained.

Did you put down a sheet of paper on the table at which you were working when you began to process the swatches on June 14th?

Yes.

And again, was that done to protect the table so no bloody swatches would get on it?

And to protect the swatches themselves. Just everything in general.

Were you ever trained to change the sheet of paper each time you moved onto a different item number?

The swatches never came in contact with the paper.

Miss Mazzola, the individual bindles were right on top of the table, right on top of the piece of paper that was on the table; is that right?

Correct.

And then you would have to call or use some instrument to get the swatches out of the tube into the paper bindle; isn't that correct?

Correct.

Is there any danger that any of those swatches could either miss that--that piece of paper that's a bindle and hit the table or simply glance off the paper and hit the table? Isn't there a danger that can happen?

No.

Okay. And so you were never trained to change the sheet of paper between item numbers; is that correct?

That is correct.

Unintelligible.

Overruled.

Did the Court read that?

And do you also wear a pair of gloves for this operation as well?

Yes.

But you were not trained to change your gloves between the handling of each item when you were doing this procedure, were you?

No, because the hands never came in contact with the swatches.

Why are you wearing gloves, ma'am, in the first place?

It's just something that is routine that I do.

Well, weren't you taught to wear gloves when you were performing this procedure, Miss Mazzola?

I would do it whether or not I was taught or not.

Miss Mazzola, were you taught to wear gloves for this procedure?

I do not believe we were taught to specifically wear gloves for that procedure.

Were you taught to wear gloves any time you're handling bloody swatches?

And the reason you have to wear those gloves when you're handling swatches even if you're using instruments is because there's always that danger that an accident could happen and a swatch could come in contact with your skin; isn't that correct?

It's possible.

Well, isn't that the reason for the rubber glove; to protect your skin from coming into contact with the bloody swatch?

This is argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained.

Now, would you agree that just as there's nothing special about the coin envelope and the plastic bag, there is nothing unique or special about a folded piece of paper that becomes a bindle?

That is correct.

That without some kind of identifying markings on it, they all look alike?

Correct.

So you put the swatches that you removed from some of the test tubes into paper bindles that you had created; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And there were no photos taken of the swatches as they're sitting in the paper bindle before it's folded; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And then there's no notation by you in any document at that point in time of the number of swatches that you're putting into each of those bindles; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And of course, you have never directed a forensic photographer to take a photograph of the swatches as they're sitting on that bindle before it gets folded up; isn't that correct?

Correct.

Do you know as to your recollection that day, were the swatches all dry as they were put into the paper bindles?

The swatches were all dry before they were put into the paper bindles.

Do you have an independent recollection of that?

If they were not dry, they would not be put into the paper.

That's just standard procedure?

Yes.

Now, to your knowledge, have any of the swatches been mixed up and placed in the wrong paper bindle or the wrong coin envelope either accidentally or intentionally in this case?

No.

Well, item 11 is a stain that you collected from a wire at Rockingham on June 13th; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And you collected that stain with a swatch; isn't that right?

Correct.

And you moistened that cotton--sorry. Are you aware as you sit here today, Miss Mazzola, that a technician employed by the California Department of Justice tested the swatch that you put in the evidence bindle and it tested negative for the presence of blood?

Wait.

Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that last question.

Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that some swatches could get put into the bindle which has been incorrectly accidentally marked?

No.

Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that without writing a proper documentation on each bindle, there is really no way to identify these otherwise unidentifiable swatches?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

The bindles were marked.

Now, Miss Mazzola, when you--sorry?

One moment.

With respect to every bindle, Miss Mazzola, that you personally folded and packaged on the morning of June 14th, didn't you write your own initials on those bindles?

On the opinions themselves?

Yes.

No. The item number.

Page 768, your Honor, line 19 to line 22.

Do you have that, Mr. Goldberg?

Yes.

Proceed.

Miss Mazzola, again referring you to the August 23rd, 1994 hearing when you testified under oath, were you asked the following question, did you give the following answer? "Question: And you also believe that the bindles that you packed that morning were also initialed by you? "Answer: That's correct." did you give that answer to that question just two months after or two and a half months after you were involved in packaging bindles on June 14th?

Correct.

And that's because on August 23rd, when you testified in this case, it was your belief that you had in fact initialed the bindles that you had prepared the morning of the 14th; isn't that right?

Yes.

And the reason that you would put your initials--I'm sorry. The reason that you would put your initials on these bindles is because you had learned that technique from watching other criminalists at the crime scenes that you had been present at; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And that you learned from these other criminalists, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you personally create a bindle, you write your initials on the outside; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that you were simply following the same procedure that you had seen these other criminalists use on the morning of the 14th?

No.

Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that all the bindles that you initialed were put back in the original coin envelopes on the morning of the 14th?

I did not initial any bindles.

Correct.

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that to demonstrate a reliable chain of custody, the original paper bindles created the morning of June 14th, 1994 are retained for trial? Have you been taught that?

Not really, no.

Have you been taught that by keeping the original bindles, that the police can show that the swatches sent out to other labs come from the original bindle that the evidence was placed in?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

I do not know that.

Were you taught at any point, Miss Mazzola, that at trial, by placing one's initials on the original bindle, it can be identified by a criminalist as the same bindle that that criminalist folded and personally placed evidence in on a particular date?

I was not told that, no.

Were you told that one reason to retain the original bindles is to refute an allegation that the original evidence had been tampered with?

No.

Have you been told that the practice of saving original bindles is a standard practice of the Los Angeles Police Department?

I had not been told that, no.

Well, Miss Mazzola, what I would like you to do now, looking at the envelopes that are in front of you, the coin envelopes, I would like you to produce those paper bindles that in your sworn testimony of August 23rd you claimed had your initials written on them.

Unintelligible.

Sustained.

Miss Mazzola, when was the first time you learned that the paper bindles that the Prosecution intended to introduce in this case did not have your initials on them?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Miss Mazzola, would you please now look through those envelopes and show this jury which if any of those bindles have your initials on them?

As I said before, they do not have my initials on them.

And you know that, Miss Mazzola, because before this jury walked in here today, you opened each and every one of those coin envelopes, didn't you?

I had known that my initials were not on the bindles before today.

When was it that you first learned that your initials were not on the coin--on the bindles, Miss Mazzola?

It was sometime ago.

Well, was it after August 23rd, Miss Mazzola?

It was after, yes.

Was it during one of the prep sessions with the Prosecutors that you learned that, Miss Mazzola?

No, I do not believe so.

Was it one of your superiors at the--at SID who first brought that to your attention?

No.

Was it another employee at SID who brought that to your attention?

I do not believe it was other employee who brought it to my attention.

Were you shown photographs of those bindles?

No.

One moment.

Who was it that first brought it to your attention that the bindles that the Prosecution was saying were the original bindles did not have your initials on them?

Argumentative, your Honor.

Overruled.

And when was that approximately?

I can't tell you approximately. I don't remember the date.

When you say you saw a few of the bindles, approximately how many bindles did you see?

I can't remember the exact number or even approximate number.

Well, you said--

It was some bindles.

All right. But as you know, Miss Mazzola, there were at least 30 or 40 bindles generated in this case, correct, by you on the 13th and 14th?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that there were more than 25 bindles generated by bloodstain evidence in this case?

I did not count them.

Would you please take a quick look at your notes? Maybe that will refresh your recollection as to how many blood stain bindles were generated in this case.

It's approximately 35.

And you said you saw a few in serology one day; is that right?

Correct.

By the way, you're not assigned to serology. You're assigned to toxicology; isn't that right?

Correct.

Were you brought over to serology to look at some of the bindles that had been collected in this particular case?

I was not brought over, no.

Well, why were you looking at some of the bindles in this case in the serology laboratory?

Because I had gone over there to look at them.

And had someone asked you to come over to look at them?

No.

Well, how did you know that these bindles were out on the counter in the serology laboratory?

I saw them as I was passing by.

You mean--how big is the lab--the serology laboratory, Miss Mazzola?

I don't know.

Well, would you agree that it's certainly longer than the width of this courtroom, the entire serology laboratory?

I don't go into serology a lot. I couldn't tell you honestly.

Well, just approximate. Would you say it's almost as long as this room?

I don't know.

Is it at least half the size of this room, Miss Mazzola?

At least half the length, yes.

And there are many different work spaces in there?

There are the main table down the middle, yes.

And that table runs the entire length of the room, doesn't it?

Not the entire length, no.

And there are work stations around the perimeter of the room as well?

I don't know if those are work stations or not.

Just one moment.

And, Miss Mazzola, the bindles that you're talking about are about this size that I'm showing you right now (Indicating)?

Correct.

I'm referring to bindles in People's exhibit 1630-d.

Approximately inch by inch and a half, two inches.

And is it your testimony that you just happened to be walking through this room and you noticed that a couple of the bindles that were on the counter somewhere happened to be from your case? Is that what you're saying?

I had seen them out, people working, and I went in to see.

Well, did you go in to see because you knew that people were working on the bindles in this case? Is that the reason you went into serology?

I saw they were working on something. I went in to check out what it was.

You mean you had no idea that what they were working on was this particular case?

They work on several cases.

They work on hundreds of cases, don't they?

Probably hundreds, yes.

All right. But you walked in thinking that perhaps they were working on the serology of this particular case. Isn't that fair to say?

Yes.

That's what peeked your interest, isn't it?

Yes.

But you said earlier that you had no particular interest in this case, didn't you, Miss Mazzola?

I had seen my colleagues working on it. I thought it was this case. So I just went in to see what they were working on. That's it.

And the reason you went in to see what they were working on is because you wanted to see work going on in the case that you participated in; isn't that right?

Not the actual work. I just was interested in what they were doing.

Who were the colleagues you saw working on it that day?

Oh, I can't remember. This was a while ago.

Well, was this the--this is after August 23rd though, correct?

Correct.

And you don't remember which serologists were working on it that day?

This is asked and answered. Badgering.

The probative value of this line of questioning I think has been exhausted.

All right.

Miss Mazzola, but needless to say, they were not working--I'm sorry. How many different bindles did you say were created in this case. Was it 35 or thereabouts?

Those--

Vague as to this case.

Overruled.

What does he mean? Just those items on 13?

Overruled.

You testified a moment ago to a certain number and I don't recall the number. Could you remember it?

Those were the number of--the item numbers with red stains that were picked up.

Okay. And would it be fair to say that simply from--since Mr. Fung collected many of these bindles or performed many of these bindles and you made many--some of the bindles, that just seeing some bindles not having your initials on them would not necessarily be surprising, would it?

Yes.

I mean accepting your testimony on August 23rd, one would expect to see your initials on some of the bindles and Dennis Fung's initials on other bindles, correct?

Correct.

So simply seeing Dennis Fung's initials on some bindles that they were working on in the serology laboratory on a date after August 23rd did not cause you any alarm, did it?

Irrelevant.

Sustained. Counsel, we've cover this area.

Your Honor, this is argumentative.

Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. All right. Counsel, we're going to take a 10-minute--

I'm through.

You're through?

Yes.

All right. We're still going to take a 10-minute recess, and we'll conclude with Mr. Goldberg. I would like to finish this witness today. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a brief 10-minute recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. We will reconvene in 10 minutes. And let's restaple 116.