Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, yesterday Mr. Neufeld concluded his cross-examination pending permission from the Court to reopen when certain items of evidence were delivered to the Court. Those items have been received by the Court and I'm going to allow Mr. Neufeld to continue and conclude his cross-examination, including questioning as to these items. All right. Mr. Neufeld.

Your Honor, I believe I will also be doing the recross as well now, so it is all--

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

No, I didn't take it that way.

Okay. Fine. Good morning. And good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

Miss Mazzola, you said a little bit--a while ago on redirect examination, that Dennis Fung had directed you just to use a single swab on the gas pedal, the brake pedal and the emergency brake when you got to the Bronco on the 14th; is that right?

That's correct.

You said he wanted you to use the same swab on all three because he just wanted to see whether or not they had been used at all or blood had been in contact with them; is that correct?

Correct.

Well, wouldn't it have been very important, Miss Mazzola, if there was blood on only one pedal, wouldn't that indicate that someone had climbed into the car, as opposed to have driven the car?

Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

You can--

Sustained.

I'm sorry.

Well, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that to drive a car one has to use both the brake and the gas pedal?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

Yes.

And would you agree that if you only saw some indicia of blood on, let's say, the emergency brake, but not on the accelerator, nor the brake, that would be evidence that someone had not driven the car who had blood on their shoe but rather someone may have climbed into the car and not driven it?

Argumentative.

And by the way, Miss Mazzola, you said that you didn't even see any red stains on any of those three items in the car, did you?

Miss Mazzola, you examined those items with that flashlight that you can see in the picture, didn't you?

Mr. Fung did, yes.

And Mr. Fung never said in your presence that he observed any stains on those three items, did he?

Hearsay.

Sustained. It is hearsay.

Well--

Rephrase the question. Did Mr. Fung ever direct your attention to anything on the brake pedals?

No.

Proceed.

And in fact, neither you nor Mr. Fung that day collected any swatches from any of those three items, did you?

No, we did not.

And it is not because you were only looking for representative stains, because there were no other stains on any of those three items, were there?

I do not know if there were any stains present.

Well, you didn't see any stains, did you?

And again, repeating his Honor's question to you and I'm going to get it wrong--perhaps you could repeat your own question. Did Mr. Fung direct your attention to any stains at all on either of these three items?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

No.

Thank you.

I liked it the first time, too. No, don't ask it again.

Just kidding.

When you did the demo, the demonstration videotape, ma'am, you wanted to perform on that tape as well as possible, right?

Yes.

And you were told in fact that there was a chance that this tape might be played for the jury? You were told that, too, weren't you?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

That there was a chance.

And when you did this demonstration, I mean relative to an actual crime scene, it was under ideal conditions, wasn't it?

Not ideal, no.

Well, Miss Mazzola, there were no bodies present, were there?

No.

There were no 20 or 25 police officers present, were there?

No.

There weren't a phalanx of journalists with t.v. cameras across the street, were there?

No.

And there were no time constraints, were there?

No.

And nonetheless, Miss Mazzola, problems still arose during the course of making that video, didn't they?

Vague as to "Problems."

Overruled.

Problems such as the stains being a little difficult to remove, yes.

Other than the stain being difficult to remove, is it your opinion, ma'am, that no problems occurred or are visualized in that entire demonstration video?

It is still vague as to "Problems."

Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what you mean by "Problems." (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

Well, without telling us what was said, Miss Mazzola, were any problems with what happened on that videotape called to your attention while you were there shooting it?

It is irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.

Directly called to your attention?

Not that I can recall.

So as you sit here today, having seen this videotape now, both yesterday--I'm sorry, the day before and again today, it is your opinion that there were no mistakes made by you?

It is still vague as to "Mistakes."

Overruled.

Thank you.

Yesterday, Miss Mazzola, you said that you were not familiar with Mr. Simpson's name when you arrived at the scene on the 13th; is that right?

That's correct.

Well, would it be fair to say that by the time you left Rockingham late in the afternoon on the 13th that it certainly came to your attention that he was a famous person?

I found out who he was, yes.

Well, not just who he was, but you found out that because of who he was that this case was going to receive a great deal of attention?

I could tell that from the cameras already gathered at his house.

And even though you may not have thought about everything that happened on the 13th, the night of the 13th, certainly within the next couple of days you were able to glean just from the vast media attention that this was going to be a case which was very high-profile?

Yes, it was going to be high-profile.

And in fact, ma'am, in the next few weeks there was actually a hearing held in connection with that case, wasn't there?

Are we talking about in August?

It could have been.

And would you agree, ma'am, that throughout the month of June, the month of July and the month of August, up until the time you testified on August 23rd, there was a tremendous amount of media attention to this case?

I guess it was on t.v., yes.

And you realized during those two and a half months, Miss Mazzola, that you played a very significant role in this case, didn't you?

Argumentative as to the word "Significant."

Overruled. But we have sort of plowed this ground already.

Two more questions on this, your Honor.

Please.

As I said before, I didn't give it much thought about what was going on in the media.

Miss Mazzola, you realized from the day you collected evidence in this case that there was going to come a time when you were going to have to testify about what you did, right?

Yes.

And with all that media attention that you were conscious of between June 13th and August 23rd, didn't you at any point during those two months, with this being in the newspapers, on television and on the radio, at all review in your own mind what it is that you actually did on the 13th?

No.

You never reviewed it at all?

No.

Okay. Now, you also said that what helped you to remember better what actually happened on the 13th and 14th was when you look at photographs; is that right?

Yes.

And I believe you said that, for instance, looking at the photograph of item no. 47, refreshed your recollection about what happened; is that correct?

Well--

That was one of the examples used by Mr. Goldberg; isn't that right?

I believe it was 47. I'm not quite sure.

Well, let me just show you the photograph of item 47.

All right. And Mr. Douglas, this is People's exhibit which?

Thank you. Why don't you take a long pointer with you.

Now, Miss Mazzola, I'm pointing to item 47, correct?

Correct.

And that is the photograph of item 47. Is that the photograph of item 47 that you looked at.

Assumes facts not in evidence, that there was only one photograph.

Overruled.

I looked at several photographs of the scene.

Well, you said that you looked at a photograph of item 47, did you not?

Yes.

Was this the photograph of item 47 that you looked at?

I do not believe this was the exact photograph of item 47 that I looked at.

All right. What other photographs of item 47 did you look at to refresh your recollection?

Overall views of the scene. That is what helped most.

Well, ma'am, yesterday you said that specifically you recalled looking at a photograph of item 47 and that refreshing your recollection about what transpired on June 13th. I'm simply asking you whether or not this is the photograph you looked at of item 47 or was there another photograph of item 47 that you looked at?

Asked and answered.

Sustained.

Is it now your testimony that it wasn't a photograph of item 47 which refreshed your recollection but instead other photographs of the scene?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

You may sit down again.

You would agree, Miss Mazzola, that that photograph of item 47 is nothing more than a red stain on a piece of concrete or the ground cover? Isn't that right?

Irrelevant; best evidence.

Sustained.

Have you looked at any photograph at all, Miss Mazzola, which shows anyone collecting item 47?

No.

Have you looked at any photograph which shows anyone kneeling down next to item 47?

No.

But it is your testimony that looking at photographs of item 47 refreshed your recollection about what happened; is that right?

Yes.

And since photographs refresh your recollection, did you also look at photographs of the other items that were collected in this case at Bundy?

That is compound as phrased.

Overruled.

I looked at several photographs, yes.

Did you look at a photograph which reflected the location of item 50?

Which item is 50?

Item 50 would be photo identification 115, you know, one of the blood drops taken from Bundy.

I looked at several photographs of the scene.

And were they photographs that depicted the location of the different blood drop stains at Bundy?

It showed their overall view, yes.

All right. Next in order, your Honor?

1121.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Robertson?

1121.

1121.

All right. It appears to be a photograph of the rear stairway at Bundy.

Do you recognize the card that is sitting at the top of the stairs in front of the gate?

It appears to be one of ours.

And can you recognize what number it is on it?

115.

I will take your word for it, yes.

Well, no, no, please. Check your notes.

Yes.

Hum, yes?

Yes.

You were present when these photographs were taken, correct?

I was at Bundy, yes.

Well, didn't you testify on direct examination and on redirect examination that you and Dennis Fung together participated in setting up the photographing of the various items at Bundy?

That misstates the evidence.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Wasn't one of your responsibilities at Bundy to participate in the documenting of items of evidence?

Yes.

And part of the documenting of evidence entails the photographing of items, does it not?

Yes.

And one of the things that you had been taught at the SID mini academy was to get various angles or various distances of the different items, correct?

The forensic photographers know that, yes.

To shoot a close-up and to shoot it further away?

Correct.

And you--did you, with Dennis Fung, put down the various numbers along the way so the items could be photographed?

I helped put down some of them, yes.

Do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, as to which number you put down and which numbers he put down?

The ones I participated in were up near the front of the house in the area that the crime occurred.

Okay. But where 115 is in this picture, Miss Mazzola, is actually where item 50, the blood stain is; isn't that correct?

Correct.

And you personally knelt down and collected that stain, correct?

Correct.

And Miss Mazzola, when you collected that stain, you were just a few feet in front of that rear gate, weren't you?

It appeared--

Weren't you?

It appears that 115 is near the gate, yes.

And you have to pass through that gate to get to 117 which became item 52, don't you?

Yes.

Well, if photographs--did seeing photographs refresh your recollection, Miss Mazzola? When you were shown this photograph, when you looked at the different photographs at the scene of Bundy before taking the witness stand, did that refresh your recollection that there was in fact a rear gate located there?

The photographs show that yes, there was a rear gate.

Well, did seeing that photograph refresh your recollection even before you took the witness stand in this case, that there was a rear gate at that location?

That morning I did not recall seeing a back gate.

Miss Mazzola, when you say, "That morning," you mean the morning of June 13th?

Correct.

When you say you didn't recall seeing a gate on June 13th, are you saying that at a certain point in time when I thought back to June 13th I don't recall seeing a gate? Is that what you mean by that statement?

Well, it misstates the testimony as to a "Rear gate."

Overruled. Overruled.

All right. Miss Mazzola, when was the first time that somebody asked you about a back gate?

I don't remember the exact date.

The month?

Not even the month.

The season?

I can't even remember that.

Well, was it several months after you were out there in June, more or less?

It was after we had been out there in June.

Well, when you say "After," was it the next day?

No.

Okay. So it was many weeks later?

I think we have given the jury a picture of what the state of the recollection is.

All right.

And when you say you didn't recall seeing a back gate there, do you mean that at that first time, sometime after June 13th, when someone asked you about a back gate, in that conversation you didn't recall a back gate? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?

Yes, I did not remember seeing a back gate.

Okay. And then subsequent to that first conversation you had with someone when they asked you about a back gate and you said no, I don't recall one, were you then shown photographs, prior to taking the witness stand at this trial, where you actually saw the back gate?

I saw photographs, yes.

And did those photographs include a photograph of this back gate, Miss Mazzola?

Yes.

And so before you took the witness stand in this case, Miss Mazzola, did seeing that photograph of the back gate refresh your recollection that there was a back gate there on June 13th?

I still say on June 13th I did not remember seeing a back gate.

Miss Mazzola, you have testified before this jury that there was some things you don't remember but when you finally see photographs of them you then begin to have your recollection refreshed; is that correct?

On some things, yes.

Is there any other item, by the way, Miss Mazzola, where you have seen a photograph of it since where, nonetheless, it is your recollection that an object didn't exist the way you saw it on June 13th?

Your Honor, at this time I would object under 352.

Well, the question is vague.

One moment.

Now, Miss Mazzola, you have testified, I believe yesterday, that you first realized that the blood vial had been carried in the black trash bag on the morning of June 14th when you arrived at the evidence processing unit; is that correct?

I had seen it in the evidence processing unit, yes.

On the 14th?

On the 14th.

Right. And that is when you realized that it had been in that trash bag; is that correct?

Yes.

And in fact where you saw it was when you lift--took item 15, item 16, you say, and the gray envelope out of the trash bag on the 14th; is that correct?

I did not personally remove those items from the trash bag, no.

You did not remove any of the items?

Personally, no.

Were they removed in your presence?

The blood sample was, yes.

Well, who removed item 15 and 16 from the trash bag?

Those were removed later. I'm not sure if it was myself or Mr. Fung did it later.

When you say "Later," you mean in the afternoon, after you came back from the Bronco?

I'm not sure. It was sometime on the 14th, but I'm not sure when.

But you do recall in the morning when you first got there that Mr. Fung removed--I'm sorry. Did you say you removed the blood vial in the gray envelope or that Mr. Fung did?

Mr. Fung.

In your presence?

Yes, I was there.

Okay. Now, you have also said that you have watched portions of this trial, either on t.v. or listened to it on the radio; is that correct?

Bits and pieces, yes.

And are you aware, Miss Mazzola, that two weeks ago on April 12th Dennis Fung testified that he carried the blood sample to the crime scene truck either in a paper bag, a posse box or by itself?

Your Honor, this is irrelevant and calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Miss Mazzola--one second.

Your Honor, may I please have a side bar on this particular question, on this line?

Miss Mazzola, are you aware of Mr. Fung's testimony regarding the collection of the blood vial envelope?

No, I don't believe I watched it or listened to it.

All right. Has anybody discussed that with you?

Proceed.

Well, at any point prior to Mr. Fung's testimony on April 12th did you tell anyone in the District Attorney's office that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

No, I don't believe so.

You testified on redirect examination yesterday that you had an independent recollection of carrying a trash bag out of Rockingham even before seeing the videotape; is that right?

Yes.

And you also testified that you figured out on the morning of June 14th that you had carried the vial of blood out of Rockingham in that trash bag; is that right?

Yes.

And you say that you came to realize, on the morning of June 14th, that you took items 15 and 16 out of the trash bag--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. And you also said yesterday that when you were shown the gray envelope you were able to see the time on it as well, time of collection; is that right?

There was a time on it, yes.

Well, what you saw on the 14th was a statement in Dennis Fung's handwriting that said, "Received" with a date and a time of 5:20 in the afternoon or 1720 hours?

I'm not sure what all it said.

At this point in time you are not sure?

Yes, at this point in time.

Might it refresh your recollection as to what time you observed if you actually saw a photograph of that envelope?

At what time I observed on the envelope itself or--

No, no, of the time that was written on the envelope that you observed on the 14th if I showed you now a photograph of--of the gray envelope?

Unintelligible.

Do you understand the question?

Not really.

All right.

Would a photograph of the gray envelope--

Right.

--which reflects Mr. Fung's notations as to when it was collected, would that refresh your recollection as to what you saw there?

I remember seeing the gray envelope and the writing.

I'm sorry, you said--

I remember seeing the gray envelope and writing.

Next in order--

Could we have 184-a, Deirdra.

All right. Mrs. Robertson, do you have that handy?

Let me just show you, Miss Mazzola, what is Prosecution's exhibit 184. I will ask you to take a look at that, whether it refreshes your recollection as to the writing that you claim to have seen on the morning of June 14th when the gray envelope was removed from the garbage bag?

Object to the word "Claimed" as argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Does seeing that photograph refresh your recollection as to what it is you say you saw on the morning of the 14th?

It looks like what I saw. I said I saw the writing.

Okay. And the writing you saw said that it was received by Mr. Fung, right?

Well, "Received from Detective Vannatter."

And that is in Dennis Fung's handwriting?

It looks like his signature. I'm not very familiar with his handwriting.

Looks like his signature, though?

Yes.

And there is a time on it, right?

Yes.

1720 hours?

Looks like "1720."

And there is a date?

Yes.

And the date is June 13th, 1994, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

And you are absolutely sure, as you sit here today, Miss Mazzola, this you came to this realization about having carried the blood vial on the morning of June 14th, long before you viewed the videotape?

Yes.

When was the first time that you told anyone at all about realizing that you had carried the blood sample out of Rockingham and back to the laboratory in a trash bag?

Asked and answered and hearsay.

Overruled.

Well, was it in the last three months?

I don't remember.

Was it in the fall?

I don't remember.

Was it during one of the prep sessions with the District Attorney?

All right. I think we have covered this.

Okay.

Do you remember when it was the first time--I asked you before about the first time you told anyone. Do you remember the first time you told the Prosecutor? Same answer?

Same answer.

Okay. Well, two weeks ago, ma'am, on or around April 12th, did any Prosecutor ask you about your recollection as to who carried the blood sample out of Rockingham and as to how it was carried?

That might have been asked.

But as you sit here today you have no recollection whether any Prosecutor asked you on or about April 12th whether you had a recollection as to how the blood vial was carried out of Rockingham and if so by whom?

I had talked to them on and off. I don't recall exactly what we all talked about.

And you don't recall whether or not this was even talked about at all, do you?

It could have been. I don't remember--

As you sit here today, you have no independent recollection--

Wait, wait.

Sorry.

Let her finish the answer. Don't cut her off, him please.

Sorry, Miss Mazzola.

Be my guest.

As you sit here today you have no independent recollection of having said that to any of the Prosecutors on or about April 12th of 1995?

Vague as to "That."

Overruled.

I'm not sure of the date. We may have talked about it. I'm not positive.

And--one second.

You said that you don't remember the first time you told the Prosecutors that you had carried out the blood vial in that black trash bag, but whenever that time was, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutors seem surprised or elated by that remark by you?

No.

Now, on November 22nd, at a restaurant, you had a meeting where your boss, Michele Kestler, was present, correct?

She was present at a meeting at a restaurant, yes.

And there were two investigators from the District Attorney's office present at that meeting as well?

Yes.

And during the course of that discussion the subject of Detective Vannatter giving the vial of Mr. Simpson's blood arose, didn't it?

This has been asked and answered.

Sustained. We have already gone through this.

We went into it on redirect.

We have already gone through this, counsel.

May I have a side bar, your Honor? There is a new issue relating to this that came up, I believe.

No. Proceed.

Do you recall on redirect--

Excuse me. You can make your record at the noon break.

Do you recall, Miss Mazzola, Mr. Goldberg on redirect asking you a question about handling the evidence versus carrying it?

Yes.

And didn't you tell the detectives on November 22nd that you never handled the blood vial?

This has been asked and answered.

Overruled.

I'm not exactly sure remembering what I told them. It has been a while.

Well, did Miss Michele Kestler at any time during that interview ask you to clarify the difference between "Handling" the blood vial and "Carrying" the blood vial?

I don't remember if she did or not.

Do you recall Miss Kestler actually specifically asking you, not the detectives now, "Did you ever handle O.J.'s vial of blood?" unquote?

She might have. I--I don't remember.

And if she had asked you that, Miss Mazzola, given the distinction that you gave to this jury between "Handle" and "Carry," would your answer to that question be no or would it be yes?

Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

It has also been asked and answered.

Miss Mazzola, you said you learned that that meeting had been tape recorded; is that right?

Yes.

Ask you to take a look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what you said.

Your Honor, this has been asked and answered. I object.

Overruled.

Your Honor, we need to approach before he does this.

No, we don't. It is for purposes of refreshing her recollection.

This is something that they did not provide to us in discovery.

Your Honor, this is now a speaking objection.