All right. Thank you, counsel. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recall--well, with regard to evidence collection, items number 15 and 16, the parties, both sides have withdrawn their objection to those items. So we will proceed with those. All right. Mr. Goldberg.

Your Honor, then I'll mark as my next exhibit in order as People's 203--

203.

--item no. 15, and as 204, item no. 16. I'm not going to write on these because they already have markings on them.

All right.

May I approach the witness?

You may.

Miss Mazzola, showing you item no. 15 and item no. 16, do you recognize those?

Yes.

And what are those?

They are the two items which were collected at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th.

And when was the packaging that they're now contained in, when were they placed in those packaging materials?

That happened June 14th back at the laboratory.

Can you remove the item from People's 1--excuse me--203 for identification, that's number 15, and tell us what you're doing for the record?

I am opening the coin envelope and removing appears to be airline tickets.

All right. Maybe you can just hold that up so the jurors can see what you have.

Now, when you were actually at the location, did you put that in any packaging material other than the plastic bag itself?

No.

Now, can you remove item no. 16 from its coin envelope and describe what you're doing for the record?

Okay. I am removing item no. 16 from the envelope. It appears to be a baggage claim ticket from an airline.

And was that placed in any other packaging material on the 13th when you were at Rockingham other than the plastic bag itself?

No.

Thank you. Can you just hold up item no. 15 one more time after you put 16 away?

Sure (Witness complies).

Your Honor, maybe I could just take a look at 163-h for identification, the gray analyzed evidence envelope.

Can you put that--just keep that out for a second.

Do you want the item itself kept out?

Yeah, if she would.

All right.

I would like to give you 163-h. Maybe you can just hold the two of those up so we can get a relative size comparison.

And neither that item that you're holding now nor item no. 16 were placed in any other packaging material other than the plastic bag while you were at the Rockingham location?

Correct.

Now, when you were carrying the plastic bag out of the location, did it feel to you like it weighed anything more than what you would expect with just item 15 and 16 and the little cards, collection cards?

Thank you. You can replace that item.

Could you just hold up the envelope itself so that we can--no, no. The envelope, coin envelope. Is that the type of coin envelope or one of the kinds of coin envelopes that you do have in your crime scene boxes?

Yes.

And where were those coin envelopes at the time that you and Mr. Fung recovered item 15 and 16?

They were in the back of the truck.

Locked?

Locked.

Thank you. Now, turning to the Bronco search and collection of evidence, you said that on the pedals, that you used the same swab for the purposes of the phenolphtalein test?

Correct.

Why was that done?

Mr. Fung just wanted to see if the pedals had been manipulated as if someone had driven the Bronco.

As opposed to what?

As opposed to just getting in the Bronco and then getting right back out.

So he wanted to see whether there was any evidence of any blood on any one of the three pedals?

Correct.

And when he directed you to do this test, did you have any fear or concern on your part that if you suggested to him that three different swabs should be used that he was going to say to you, "I can't believe that you would question my judgment. I think you should be fired"?

No.

Or anything along those lines?

No.

And when you were doing this phenolphtalein test, was it your intent to collect anything or try to collect anything from the pedals?

Objection to what he said.

Sustained.

If you could just tell us what your intent was.

The intent was to see if the pedals had been manipulated. That was it.

And is it your practice not to collect every single last stain that you see in a car that contains many stains such as the Bronco?

A representative sample of what is in the car would be taken.

And who was making the judgment call as to which samples to take and not to take from the Bronco?

That was Mr. Fung.

Now, I would like to direct your attention to People's 195-a for identification.

This photograph is a little bit washed out. Have you had an opportunity--

Objection, your Honor, to his testifying.

Overruled.

Have you had an opportunity to look at the actual photograph before?

Yes.

And was this a photograph that was taken on the 14th when you and Mr. Fung were doing the evidence collection at the Bronco?

Yes, it was.

Now, do you have an independent recollection of seeing any of the stains that appear in the running board area of the driver's side door?

Not on the running board itself, no.

Let's take a look at 197 for identification. Now, with respect to the little stains that are contained in this photograph--

Objection, your Honor, to little stains.

Sustained. Counsel, objection. Then I'll ask for the grounds. Both sides.

Do you see some stains that are contained in this photograph?

I see cards where there would be stains.

No. I'm talking about the area of the running board, the driver's area.

Objection as to the characterization. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Rephrase the question.

Talking about the white metallic area that's in the forefront of this area.

There appears to be a dark spot on it.

Now, do you recall seeing that on the 14th?

No, I don't recall if I saw that or not.

And do you recall seeing any other spots in that area on the 14th?

No.

Now, when you say you don't recall, does that mean that they weren't there?

Objection, your Honor.

Rephrase the question.

When you say that you don't recall, does that mean that you looked in that area, examined it and that they weren't there?

It means I don't recall if I saw stains there or not.

And prior to looking at the crime scene photographs, did you have any recollection as to the rear gate at Bundy being there?

No.

But does that mean that it wasn't there?

Objection, your Honor, again as to form.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Does that mean that you looked and you examined the area and you saw that there was no rear gate at Bundy?

I did not remember if--seeing a rear gate at Bundy.

But do you now know that there was in fact one there?

I know now that there was a gate, yes.

And prior to seeing the videotape of yourself collecting the glove at the Bundy location--

I think we've asked this question already, counsel.

Not in this context.

We asked the same question yesterday afternoon though in a similar context.

Well, you testified yesterday that you didn't have an independent recollection prior to seeing the videotape of collecting the glove at Bundy. Does that mean that you didn't collect it or you remember not collecting it?

Objection.

Counsel, we've already been through--you've already asked that question.

Okay.

Now, who was doing most of the work in terms of trying to identify stains on the Bronco prior to the actual physical collection of the stains?

Mr. Fung.

What were you doing?

I was passing him the photo id cards, doing a sketch, helping with measurements, passing him supplies as he needed them.

Okay. Now, Miss Mazzola, with respect to the stains that are in this People's exhibit 197 for identification, did you ever consider at all testifying that you did see them on the 14th?

Objection.

Ground?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

Okay. And you never thought of saying, "Yeah, I do remember seeing them," to help the Prosecution's case, did you?

No.

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the collection video, the blood collection video that was played. That's Defense 1117 for identification. And I'd just like to play it all the way through, and then I'll ask you some questions about what we saw.

Okay. In this scene where you're pouring some items out into the cap, what are you doing?

I am putting some of the swatches into the cap so I could pick them up with tweezers.

And now you are doing what?

Adding a drop of distilled water to the swatch and shaking it out.

And now you've placed the swatch down, and for what purpose is that?

To take a control.

And this is right by the card that says number 5?

Correct.

And you just put it into an object. What did you put the control swatch in?

It's placed in a small plastic bag.

And that had some writing on it?

Correct.

What was the writing?

The item number and c for control.

So that's all you have to put on there, is the item number and c for control?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is that all you have to put on there, just the item number and c for control?

Yes.

Now, what did you just do?

Clean the tweezers again.

And now you are placing the swatch down on the stain?

Correct.

Now, when you were handling the swatch with the tweezers, what portion of the tweezers comes into contact with the swatch?

The extreme pointed end.

Are those tweezers--is there anything special about them that distinguishes them from ordinary tweezers?

Well, they're extremely sharper and they have a longer area where you would handle the items that you need to.

Are they serrated at all so as to be able to grab things or are they just smooth?

We have some that are serrated, some that are smooth.

But these particulars ones that you use for this task are the smooth ones?

Those are smooth.

And now what are you doing?

Placing the swatch with the item in a separate plastic bag.

What does that plastic bag have on it?

The item number.

But it doesn't have a c?

No.

And why is that? Why do you put a c on one and just the item number on the other, for what purpose?

Well, I do it to designate the control. That's the only reason.

Couldn't you designate it even if you didn't write that on it?

For the most part, you can tell if the swatch has blood on it or not. But I just put a c.

Makes it easier?

Yes.

Do you write your initials anywhere on those plastic envelopes?

No.

Now, when you got up, you touched the ground. Did you notice that?

Yes.

Does that sometimes happen at a crime scene, where you will touch the ground for whatever the reason, to balance yourself?

Touch the ground or something to maintain your balance.

Does touching the ground have any impact in terms of the evidence collection?

Objection. She's not qualified.

Overruled.

Not really, no.

Now, what are you filling out now?

It could be another envelope for the next item.

Objection. Speculation.

Overruled.

When you looked at this videotape, does it look like you have more than one item in your hand--yeah. Okay--right now?

Yes.

What items do you have in your hand?

A plastic bag and coin envelope.

And what do you write on the plastic bag?

The item number.

What do you write on the coin envelope?

The item number.

And in this case, that would have been 6?

Correct.

And what are you doing now?

Cleaning the tweezers again.

Now, between the time that you cleaned your tweezers and the time you picked up this next swatch, did you ever touch the tip end of the tweezers that comes in contact with the swatch?

No.

Is that the way that you do it at a real crime scene too?

Yes.

And now what are you collecting?

The next control.

And you've just put the swatch, the control swatch, where?

In a plastic bag.

And is that designated in some way again to separate it from the stain swatch?

It has an item number and a c on it.

Now you're writing on another plastic bag?

Correct.

You just wrote the item number and is that it?

For that one, it would be just the item number.

Okay. And again, you dropped the swatch in this video. Did you try to recover that swatch or did you just leave it on the ground?

Leave it on the ground.

Now, you're having a little bit of difficulty getting this off the tweezers?

Correct.

But when you look closely, did you ever touch the swatch with your gloved hand?

No.

Or did you ever touch the area of the tweezers that comes into contact with the swatch?

No.

Is that consistent with your practice at a real crime scene?

Yes.

Now, this swatch seems to be soaking up a little easier than the other one; is that correct?

It appears to be, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Now, I want to ask you a few more questions about the videotape. First of all, in this videotape, did your gloved hands ever come into contact with a swatch?

No.

And when I say that, I mean a swatch was used for either a control or for collecting a stain.

No.

And towards the beginning portion of the videotape, do you recall a segment where your pinkie was somewhat extended almost as if you were holding a china cup?

I recall it was extended, yes.

Now, what were you doing with your pinkie in that particular segment? You were also asked about it on cross-examination.

Just helping to turn over the lid of the cap.

And when you reviewed the videotape--did you review the videotape again after your testimony?

Yes.

Could you actually see the cap being flipped before it was put on--back on top of the pill box?

Yes.

And is that also your practice at a crime scene; that in terms of the swatches that you're going to use for controls or stains, that you do not touch them with your gloved hand?

They are not touched with our hands, no.

When you watched this videotape, was there ever a time when you touched with your gloved hands the portion of the tweezers that you would use to collect either a control or a swatch after they were cleaned but before the swatch was collected?

No.

And is that also consistent with the practice that you used at a crime scene?

Yes.

Now, on stain no. 5, the demonstration stain, do you know from viewing this videotape for sure whether or not the moisture from the control swatch did eventually migrate over to the stain?

From the videotape, it looked like it was coming close, yes.

It could have?

Could have, yes.

Now, does that present a problem when you are collecting evidence?

Not really, no.

Why not?

Objection, your Honor. No foundation.

Sustained.

Okay. Well, counsel give you a hypothetical where he related to you a set of facts under which the swatch came into contact with your hand and then was placed as the substrate control down on the cement and then the water migrated over to the stain itself. Do you recall a hypothetical along those lines?

Yes.

Under that hypothetical situation, is there any danger of contaminating the item being collected, the stain?

Objection. Still no foundation with this witness.

Overruled.

Very little if any.

And if the control swatch were in fact contaminated, could that be tested for by testing the control swatch?

Objection. Beyond the scope of her expertise.

Foundation. Sustained.

Well, have you been taught what the control swatch is for?

We have been told what it can be used for, yes.

And when it gets back to the laboratory, what do the people in serology use those control swatches for?

Objection.

Rephrase the question.

Do you know what the people in serology use those for?

Okay. And if the control swatch was in fact tested and it was determined that it did not contain biological material, would that indicate that you did not contaminate the control swatch and hence the stain?

Objection. Not qualified.

Overruled.

Yes.

Now, with respect to swatches that are dropped, if you drop one of the swatches and you just leave it on the ground, can that somehow affect or contaminate the stain that you're collecting?

If it is just left on the ground?

Right.

Is there any significance to that at all that you're aware of based upon your training and experience?

No.

And when you were testifying on direct examination, do you recall being asked a couple questions about different things that could conceivably happen while you're collecting a stain?

I think so, yes.

Your Honor, at this time, I would like to read from page 23700.

What volume is this? What volume, counsel?

Excuse me, your Honor?

What volume is this?

This is volume 130. I'm going to start on line--well, actually I would like to page on page 23699 on line 27 through line 6.

Mr. Neufeld?

One second.

Do you have the page?

This is direct examination?

Correct.

I would object to rereading direct examination. It's beyond the scope of redirect examination.

No. He got into this on cross.

It's a prior consistent statement. It's hearsay. There's no inconsistency.

No, but it's not being--

Let me see counsel at sidebar.

Thank you.

All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Goldberg, what is your purpose?

Yes. On cross-examination, Mr. Neufeld asked about the portion of the direct examination where she admitted that you can drop swatches and said that the only reason that you admitted that was because you knew it was on videotape and you knew that we had that videotape and possibly were going to play it. I want to show--she admitted also she could drop the tweezers. It's not on any videotape, not any still photography. And when you bring out a portion of the statement, under the res gestae rule, we get to bring up the other story. It's fair and proper in light of cross-examination.

Objection sustained.

Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

On direct examination, were you trying to in any way conceal different problems that could happen when you're collecting a stain?

No.

And is one of the things that could conceivably happen, dropping tweezers?

It can happen, yes.

Okay. And did you admit that on direct examination?

Objection.

It's hearsay.

Did you make any effort to conceal that during direct examination, that that could be a problem?

Objection again.

Overruled.

No.

All right. And do you know for a fact whether or not you did drop any tweezers at the crime scene at Bundy or at Rockingham?

I do not believe I did.

But if that problem does occur, how do you handle it?

Clean the tweezers.

So this is a potential mistake that could occur while you're collecting evidence; is that correct?

It's not really a mistake. It can happen.

Okay. But it couldn't have any impact on the evidence collection?

No.

Now, getting back to the control swatches, I wanted to show you the evidence collection board. I think it was 177.

Excuse me. It's 167.

Mr. Goldberg.

I want to ask you some questions about cell number 8 on this board, Miss Mazzola. You may have to step down in order to see this.

On cell 8, do you see that there are--the two little white items that are sort of in the area that's framed by your hands and your body?

Yes.

One of them seems to be closer to your right knee and the other one appears to be a little closer to the edge of the coin envelope, but they're both on the cement.

Correct.

What are those white items?

They appear to be swatches.

And if someone had asked you to look at this photograph and said, "What are those items and how did they get there," would you have told them they fell out while you were taking them out of the pill box?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained. Speculative.

What would you have told them?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.

All right. You can resume your seat.

Thank you. I'm finished with the board. I'll take it--

Now, let me ask you about another issue relating to the collection of biological evidence. To your recollection, has there ever been an instance where you had the tweezers in your hand with a bloody swatch and dropped the bloody swatch?

That hasn't happened to me, no.

And if that did happen, how would you handle that situation?

Well, if there was enough of the stain left, you'd just take another swatch.

Okay. But what if you wanted to save that swatch, the one that you dropped?

Then you could package it in a separate plastic bag, separate coin envelope along with another control of the area where it fell, make a note on there what happened.

And why would you take another control?

Well, to get a sample of the area where the swatch fell.

So what would you do, to give you another hypothetical, if you had a situation where for some reason you dropped the bloody swatch and instinctively you caught it in a gloved hand? How would you handle that situation?

Same way except you'd just include the glove as the substrate.

So you could include the glove as a substrate control?

Yes.

So there are ways to deal with problems even such as dropping a bloody swatch?

Yes.

Would you package--how would you package the glove if you saved that as your substrate control?

That would be packaged in a separate plastic bag, separate coin envelope just to keep them separate.

Or could you conceivably take a control swatch from the area of the glove nearby where the stain fell?

You could. Either way.

Now, with respect to your evidence collection of the bloodstains at Bundy and Rockingham, are there any mistakes that you can think of that you could have made that could have caused the blood at that location to somehow change into the Defendant's blood?

Objection, your Honor. No foundation.

Sustained.

Are there any mistakes that you can think of that you could have made that could have caused those stains to become contaminated in such a way that they had the genetic--same genetic markers as the Defendant's blood?

Same objection, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains?

No.

Now, once you get back to the laboratory with these stains on the evening of the 13th, did you play some role in the drying process of those stains?

Yes.

And then on the 14th, to your recollection, did you play any role in the packaging of the dried stains?

Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-examination to date.

Overruled.

I may have.

Okay. And was there something else that you were working on involving a case that was separate from this at or around that time?

Yes.

Did that involve any biological evidence?

No.

Now, when the items are packaged during the drying--after they're dry into bindles, what information is placed on the bindles?

The item number and c for control on the bindle containing the control swatch.

So is that similar to the same type of information that was placed on the plastic bags at the scene?

Yes.

Do you have to distinguish necessarily between the control and the stain swatch?

It just makes it easier for the serologist.

And when you're participating in this process of packaging the dried stains, is it your practice to initial the coin envelopes?

Yes.

And is any other information placed on the coin envelopes?

The property number, which is usually different than the photo id number, but not always.

Is any DR number placed on those?

Yes. The DR number for the case is placed on each envelope.

And based upon your training and your experience, is the coin envelope what is used in order to determine what case those stains came from and where they were found at the crime scene?

It contains the information necessary, yes.

I think that's all I have. Let me just check.

Do--you said you generally initial the coin envelope?

At booking?

Yes.

It is initialed.

And do you have to initial the bindles necessarily?

No.

Objection. Leading.

Overruled.

No, not necessarily the bindles.

But you do place generally the item number and then designate the difference between the control and the stain?

Correct.

On the bindle?

Correct.

Thank you. I have nothing further.

Your Honor, two minutes.

All right. Two minutes or 10 minutes?

Comfort break.

I see. Okay. Folks, we'll take about 10 minutes. All right. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We're just going to recycle into recross. And just for your information, because of the lost time we had this morning, we're going to resume this afternoon at 1 o'clock rather than 1:30, little shorter lunch break today. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. 10 minutes.