Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

All right. Miss Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld. I am sorry.

Andrea Mazzola, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

Miss Mazzola, good afternoon. You are reminded you are under oath.

Good afternoon.

Proceed.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

Good afternoon, Miss Mazzola.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

All right. Miss Mazzola, right before lunch, I asked you a series of questions about what you said and was said to you at a meeting held on November 22nd, 1994 at which investigators from the District Attorney's office and your boss, Michelle Kestler, were present. Do you recall that?

Yes.

And you recall having that meeting with those people?

I remember a meeting with those people, yes.

And at that meeting, there was a discussion about your involvement in this case. That's one of the things that was discussed.

Well, that's vague.

Well, we've been over this. We've been over this.

All right. Miss Mazzola, I would like you to simply look at this item, see if it refreshes your recollection as to certain things that you said. I'd like you to read this portion of the transcript here?

May I just approach for a moment?

You may.

All the way to here. Okay? Right there.

Okay? Now, during that meeting on December--December 14th, you didn't tell the detectives, did you, that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had unknowingly carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag, did you?

December 14th?

No. On November--no. June 14th. Sorry.

Irrelevant unless she was asked.

At November 22nd meeting--

Hold on. Restate the question.

Calls for hearsay.

Restate the question.

Isn't it a fact that during the November 22nd meeting with the investigators from the D.A.'s office and Miss Kestler, that you didn't tell them that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had unknowingly carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag?

Calls for hearsay, not impeaching.

Sustained.

Well, didn't you tell the detectives that you could only assume that Vannatter had come up and given the vial to Dennis Fung because you weren't there then?

It's irrelevant.

At that meeting on November 22nd, in response to a specific question from Michelle Kestler, quote, did you ever handle O.J.'s vial of blood, unquote, didn't you answer her no?

I object. It's been asked and answered, not impeaching.

Overruled.

I honestly cannot remember what I said at that meeting.

Having shown you this portion of the transcript, does it refresh your recollection?

It doesn't. I'm sorry.

In the discussion you had on November 22nd with the detectives and Miss Kestler, were you deliberately trying to distance yourself from the whole subject of what happened to Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

No.

In fact, when telling the detectives the extent to which you were involved with the evidence since the morning of June 13th, did you not tell the detectives during that meeting that, quote, it wasn't my job to analyze any part of it. I didn't want to know anything about it, unquote? Did you say that to the detectives?

Hearsay.

Sustained. Also assumes facts not in evidence. Also misstates the evidence.

Did you say to the detectives at the June 22nd meeting--

Your Honor, I'm going to object.

Sustained.

Putting aside the quotation marks, didn't you inform the detectives--

Your Honor--

Sustained.

To this entire line, your Honor?

No. You're asking the wrong question here, counsel.

Did you ever say to the detectives during that meeting--

I'm sorry. Investigators from the District Attorney's office.

Big difference.

And I appreciate that difference. Okay.

At the meeting on November 22nd, did you say to Michele Kestler and to District Attorney investigators--senior investigators Michael Stevens and Dana Thompson, quote, it wasn't my job to analyze any part of it. I didn't want to know anything about it?

Hearsay, not inconsistent.

Overruled.

I might have.

Well, having shown you this portion of the transcript, does it refresh your recollection as to whether in fact you did? Would you like to see that portion again?

I see it on the paper, but I--

Well--

Hold on. She gets to answer the question, counsel.

I still actually do not remember saying that.

All right. Let's proceed.

I make a motion to strike the witness' answer.

Overruled.

"I saw it on paper."

Overruled.

Now, you testified on redirect examination that the most time-consuming portion of the process of evidence collection is to properly document and photograph the items being collected as opposed to the actual physical collection; is that correct?

Yes.

And two of the items that you collected late in the day were items 15 and 16.

203 and 204.

I ask you to please reopen Prosecution's exhibit--it doesn't have a number on it. I'm sorry. The number is?

203 and 204, 203 being item 15, 204 being item 16.

All right.

All right. The witness has cut through the sealing tape on the envelope.

And could you please examine what you've listed as item 15, please? And it's an airline ticket, correct?

It appears to be, yes.

And just so that it's no surprise about it, it's a used airline ticket; is it not?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

Yes.

And it has a date on it, doesn't it?

Let's see.

Does it have the date of June 10th on it?

A return flight, yes.

And it's not--has nothing to do with New York--with Chicago to Los Angeles, does it?

It's best evidence.

Overruled. Is there any dispute as to what the airline ticket says?

No.

Doesn't appear to be.

Thank you.

Don't forget we have an airline expert on the jury.

Okay. And by the way, item 16--is item 16 a luggage ticket for the same flight?

I'd have to check and make sure it was the same flight.

Although you have a layperson reading airline documents.

I know. All right.

It appears to be for the 10th.

Now, before items 15 and 16 could be collected by you and Dennis Fung on the afternoon of the 13th, it had--they had to be documented, didn't they, just like other items?

Yes.

And part of that documentation process entails photographing them, correct?

Yes.

And so these items were photographed in their original state before they were picked up by you, correct?

I don't recall if they were or not.

Well, if they had been photographed, Miss Mazzola, the first thing you would do is, you'd bring over the photographer, correct, the forensic photographer?

Correct.

And the next thing you would do is, you would document the location of the item someplace in writing?

It's vague and it's misstating testimony as to would do.

Overruled.

Yes.

And you would document--

Well, this is an improper hypothetical.

Overruled. Proceed.

And you would document the location in writing where the objects are, correct?

Correct.

And you would make that documentation in your field notes, correct?

Correct.

And then you would take out a photo id card and you would set it near the object, correct?

Correct.

And you would instruct the forensic photographer to photograph it, correct?

It's still vague whether he's talking about these items or a hypothetical.

Overruled. We're talking about these two items, correct?

Yes.

Proceed.

Yes.

And you would do that first--you said item 15 was the first one collected?

Item 16.

Item 16 was the first item collected. And--and if these two items were both photographed, they would both be photographer prior to the collection; is that correct?

Yes.

And all those different steps would occur prior to the actual collection, right?

Yes.

And would it be fair to say that if that happened here, that process takes anywheres from what, five to 10 minutes? Is that a fair estimate?

In this case, probably less.

Okay. Approximately how long, ma'am? It's just as best you can approximate, to do the documentation, get the photographer, to get the cards set up, to photograph them.

Probably just a few minutes.

Few minutes. And then you collect them, correct?

Correct.

Then after you collect them, you said that both items were handed to you?

Yes.

And after they were both handed to you, you said you walked into the kitchen; is that right?

I believe I was around the kitchen area.

And is the kitchen area next to the foyer?

Yes.

So you could have been either in the foyer or the kitchen? You're not sure?

I'm not sure which one.

And you remained there for a few more minutes waiting for a garbage bag to be produced; is that correct?

I'm not sure how many minutes it was.

Well, approximately how long was it that you waited in that foyer kitchen area before you got a garbage bag?

It wasn't too long.

Approximately how long? Approximately how many minutes, ma'am?

I wouldn't hazard to guess.

Well, just give us your best estimate.

Maybe five minutes or so.

Okay. So you waited there approximately five minutes, you received a trash bag and you said that you then put items 15 and 16 in this black trash bag; is that right?

Correct.

And do you have a recollection at that same time of putting the different photo id numbers in the trash bag?

I don't think I put those in personally.

Did you see them put in the bag?

I don't recall.

So the photo id numbers are something that Dennis Fung could have put into the bag after you left the bag on the foyer floor?

Calls for speculation.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, when you--

One moment.

You say, however, that as you sit here today, you don't have a present recollection of ever photographing items 15 and 16?

No, because the detectives were not interested in them as evidence. They just wanted them collected.

With the Court's permission, I would like to put exhibit number 1107 up on the elmo.

All right. Defense 1107.

Miss Mazzola, do you recognize this document as the evidence collection list for Rockingham that day, June 13th?

Yes. Yes.

And this was the list that was filled out by you, correct?

By myself and Mr. Fung, yes.

And do you notice in the first column it has a--you're supposed to put in the sample number, correct?

Correct.

And the sample number could be different from the item number; could it not?

Yes.

And so at that point, what you were using is a sample number or id photo number; isn't that right?

Correct.

And the next column says i.d. Photo, correct?

Correct.

And that column is there so you can indicate whether or not a photograph was taken of the object before it was collected; isn't that right?

Yes.

Now, I would like you to look down item 15 and 16 at the bottom of the page. Those are the last two entries you made on that page. Do you see where it says 15 and 16 at the bottom?

Yes.

And do you see the column where it says photo id?

Yes.

And you checked off that a photo id had been made for items 15, item 16, correct?

Yes.

And now that you've seen those checkmarks for photo id's for 15 and 16, does that refresh your recollection that in fact photographs were taken at the scene of those two items?

I have not seen any photographs of those two items.

Didn't ask you whether you had seen any photographs of those two items. I asked you whether by looking at your own field note and the fact that you personally had checked off photo id next to items 15 and 16, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not photographs were taken of items 15 and 16 while you were at the Rockingham residence?

Well, in fact, those are your checkmarks. You wrote those checkmarks in, didn't you, ma'am?

Yes.

Would you have written checkmarks in the box that says that a photo was taken if a photo hadn't been taken?

You mean you would make an entry in this report about something which you did not factually know to be correct just because you would assume that it must have happened?

Overbroad.

It's argumentative. Rephrase the question.

One moment.

Next in order would be?

1122.

There's actually two though.

All right. 1122 and 1123.

Is that 1120, your Honor?

1122, number one, the perspective shot, 1123 will be the close-up shot.

Miss Mazzola, do you recognize what's in that photograph--oops. Do you recognize what's in that photograph?

It's a little hard to see exactly what it is.

Well, seeing that photograph of that bench, do you have any idea what's sitting on that bench?

I know that item 16 was recovered from a bench.

But you can't tell from that picture?

Not from--

Do you see a card that says 16 on it?

I see a card, but the picture is a little--

All right. Now I'm going to be showing what's 1123, your Honor.

Now, this is a close-up, is it not, of the same shot?

It appears to be, yes.

And do you now know what the item is?

Yes. It is item 16.

And that's a card next to it that says item 16, correct?

Correct.

Now, having seen the photograph with the card in it of item 16 and the luggage ticket, which is item 16, does this now refresh your recollection as to whether or not you had forensic photographs taken of the items 15 and 16 that day?

I personally do not remember standing there watching the photograph being taken.

You collected item 16, didn't you?

I collected item 16, yes.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. You're both doing this again. Let him finish answering the question. And, Mr. Neufeld, three times already this afternoon you've cut her off again.

I know you had mentioned that one of the best ways for you to refresh your recollection is by looking at photographs; is that right?

In some instances, yes.

I know you said that with respect to the gate, seeing the photograph of the gate did not refresh your recollection that a gate was there; is that correct?

That's correct.

Well, how about this photograph with item 16 in it, seeing the luggage ticket which became item 16. Seeing that photograph now, does that refresh your recollection about whether this item was photographed by a forensic photographer on the afternoon of June 13th, 1994?

Seeing this photograph, it would have to have been photographed by a forensic photographer.

But it doesn't refresh your recollection as to whether or not you actually saw it being photographed?

No.

You can print that also.

And, Miss Mazzola, you said that items 15 and 16 were put into the trash bag; is that right?

Yes.

And the next day in the afternoon, they were removed from the trash bag?

Yes. Mr. Fung or by you?

I can't remember which one of us physically removed them from the trash bag.

Do you remember seeing them removed? Do you have an independent recollection as you sit here today?

I remember seeing them in the trash bag at the lab. I don't remember seeing them removed.

Well, Miss Mazzola, showing you the actual envelopes that item 15 and 16 are in, isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that those envelopes--that you had those envelopes in your presence at the time that items 15 and 16 were photographed and collected?

No.

Is it possible, Miss Mazzola, that just like you don't remember items 15 and 16 being photographed, that you don't remember these envelopes actually being present with you when the items were collected?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Well, Miss Mazzola, you don't know whether it was you or Dennis Fung who removed these two items from the trash bag on the 14th; is that right?

Yes.

Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that on item 15, Dennis Fung wrote his initials on it?

Yes.

And isn't it a fact, ma'am, that in item 16, you wrote your initials on it?

Yes.

And isn't it the reason that your initials are on 16 is because you collected 16?

That I packaged 16.

Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that the reason your initials appear on 16 is, as you testified earlier, you personally collected it, you physically picked it up?

Asked and answered.

Sustained.

Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that the reason Dennis Fung's initials appear on item 15 is because he collected item 15 at the Rockingham house?

He collected 15, but he had also packaged 15 because his initials are on it.

So it's your testimony that it just so happens that your initials are on 16 and his initials are on 15 not because you each collected those respective items, but because you happened to package one at the laboratory and he happened to package the other?

That's correct.

Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that in your lab box, you not only carry coin envelopes basically the size shown here for 15 and 16, but you also carry other manila envelopes such as the one I have in my left hand?

In the kits?

In the kits.

Yes.

The one you're holding in your left hand, what's the size of that? It should be written on the bottom of the bag. Turn it over. Down at the bottom. What's it say?

What does it say on the seal?

Does it have a size designation?

No, I don't see one.

All right. Give me an estimate for the record.

Hmm?

Give me an estimate for the record.

Well, Miss Mazzola, what would be your estimate of the size of this envelope I'm holding in my right hand?

I don't know. Maybe 7 by 11, 8 by 11, something like that.

Might it be a bit smaller, perhaps--

It's possible.

Could be 6 or 7 by 9 or so?

It's possible.

Okay. And you said that after you had been standing in the kitchen for five or so minutes with Dennis Fung, that you then took the bag with items 15 and 16 in it and you walked into the foyer; is that right?

I received the bag after five minutes or so.

And after you received the bag after five minutes or so, did you continue to stand in the kitchen foyer area with Dennis Fung for some period of time before putting the bag down?

I was in that area for a short period of time, yes.

And approximately how long were you in that area after you received the plastic bag?

I'm not sure exactly how long.

I'm not asking you to be sure, ma'am. Just give me your best approximation.

I couldn't even approximate. I wasn't looking at my watch.

Well, is it closer to two or three minutes or closer to 10 minutes? How long approximately?

It was more than two or three minutes, but other than that, I'm not sure.

So--so would it be fair to say that--now that you know by the way that 15 and 16 or at least 16 were photographed--but had these items been photographed--which I think you said takes a few minutes to set up and actually document. Is that a fair statement?

Vague as to document.

Overruled.

Few minutes, yes. Not many.

And then you said that you were in the kitchen for approximately five minutes waiting for the--with Dennis Fung until you got the bag; is that right?

Approximately.

And then you said it was another few minutes, more than two, but you said less than 10, that you continued to talk to Dennis Fung or stand near Dennis Fung before going to the living room, correct?

I don't believe I said it was less than 10. I said it was more than two or three.

Fine. Well, was it close to five perhaps?

I do not know.

Somewhere between two and three and five? Would that be a fair estimate?

I don't know.

But more than two or three?

More than two or three.

Okay. So just those three times alone, we're talking about a period of about perhaps 10 minutes or so before you went into the living room. Is that your testimony?

Could be a little more than that.

Okay. Perhaps as much as 12 minutes or so?

I--

Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Now, it's your testimony on direct examination that there came a time when you walked into the living room after leaving the bag, trash bag on the foyer, and you sat down on the couch and then you have an independent recollection that you closed your eyes; is that correct?

Yes.

I want you to take a look carefully, Miss Mazzola, at the--at this videotape that we received in evidence which is time coded.

One moment.

And, Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?

P-183.

You can set it up at 17:12. Fast forward. No. Just fast forward to 17:12, when they're about to go back in, showing them going in. Okay. Could you just back up a second?

Now--

Little bit more. Stop. Well--

Now, according to the tape, it's approximately 17:12 when you begin to walk back into the Rockingham house having made that first trip out to the van; is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Could you continue, please.

And according to this tape--do you recognize that gentleman in the picture; not the one in the blue uniform, the one in the gray suit?

Yes.

And who is that?

Detective Vannatter.

All right. And according to the tape, he's arriving at approximately 17:17; is that right?

Yes.

About five minutes after you finish packing up the van and begin heading back to the house?

Approximately.

Go on. Stop. Well, stop there.

Now, do you recognize the gentleman on the left as Dennis Fung?

Yes.

And Dennis Fung seems to be holding some objects, correct?

Correct.

And what is the time?

17:18.

All right. Now, Miss Mazzola--

Actually 17:18:57 because you need the precise fame--

Thank you.

--at fourteen hundredths. Proceed.

Would you agree that if it's 17:12 you started walking back into the house, by 17:18, Dennis Fung is standing in the foyer with an object which has been purported to be the blood vial envelope, would you agree that that period of time is six minutes approximately or six and a half minutes from when you started walking back into the house to the image in this frame?

Approximately, yes.

And you said a moment ago, ma'am, that when you and Dennis Fung returned to the house in the van, the first thing that was done was that item 15 and 16 were collected; is that right?

When we got back there, yes.

And that to collect them, they first had to be documented, correct?

Correct.

And you said that took a few minutes, correct?

To document an item, yes.

To document--well--and then you say that after they were documented and collected, that you stood with Dennis Fung for about five minutes in the kitchen foyer area waiting to receive the trash bag, correct?

I believe I said approximately five minutes or so.

And you said that after you received the trash bag, Miss Mazzola, that it was another--that it was at least two minutes more that you waited with Dennis Fung before walking into the living room, correct?

I was in the general vicinity, yes.

And so, ma'am, I think you also said a little while ago, therefore, that it was at least 10 minutes that you were with Dennis Fung either processing these two items or standing with them with the trash bag before you put the trash bag down in the foyer and walked into the living room; isn't that correct?

That misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Didn't you testify that it was at least 10 minutes from the time you began to document and photograph and collect items 15 and 16 until you left the trash bag in the foyer and went into the living room?

That misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Well, Miss Mazzola, by your own estimates in the last few minutes, wouldn't you agree that more than 10 minutes passed from the time you reentered Rockingham and began the collection process of items 15 and 16 until the time that you went into the living room to sit on the couch?

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

I believe I was giving estimates. It could have been one or two or even three minutes off.

Miss Mazzola, but given the estimates that you gave--not that I gave, but that you gave--by those estimates, wasn't it at least 10 minutes from the time that you first went into Rockingham to collect items 15 and 16 until you left the bag on the foyer and went into the living room and closed your eyes?

Argumentative. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

By your estimates that you just gave.

Miss Mazzola, a few minutes ago, before I showed you the KABC tape, didn't you say it was at least 10 minutes?

Well, that misstates the testimony.

Sustained. I think we've spent enough time on this, counsel.

All right. We can stop the tape.