All right. Let's proceed to the Michele Kestler issue. My understanding is the Defendant wishes to call Miss Kestler to testify first to the normal things, that she is the lab director, that she did participate in the inventorying of some of the--all of the evidence that was in possession of the LAPD at a certain point in time, did other things with regards to the physical evidence itself, and then there are the other issues regarding leaks of information. All right. So those two general areas I understand is what we are going to inquire into; is that correct? Mr. Neufeld, are you going to handle this?

Yes, your Honor. I don't even intend to spend that much time on her inventorying, things like that. I'm going to focus much more on access to information, where the security system was at LAPD for handling the information in this case, and what her role was in that and how that relates to the leaks. I'm going to make it I think even more focused.

All right. Well, this is a 402 hearing.

Right.

All right. And I understand we have counsel from the city attorney's office.

Arthur Walsh, Assistant City Attorney, here on behalf of Miss Kestler.

All right. Mr. Walsh, have you had the opportunity to consult with Defense counsel regarding their reasons for asking for this 402 hearing this morning?

No, your Honor, I have not.

All right. Do you have any comment or have you discussed this with the District Attorney's office?

I understand both from talking to the District Attorney and from general press reports what the scope of this is intended to be, and I at the present have no objection to questions directed to the witness regarding her own personal knowledge of these matters. However, should questions intrude into her knowledge of any internal affairs investigation or any matter relating to personnel records of the police department employees, I will make appropriate objections at that time.

All right. Then the Court will note your presence for the record and you may rise to assert any objections at a time you feel appropriate.

Thank you, your Honor.

And Miss Kestler, what are your time constraints this morning?

I need to leave by 10:00.

Let's get started.

Your Honor, for the record, as the Court knows, we did object to this procedure, given that there is no offer of proof and in a 402 hearing you do not necessarily have to call live witnesses since it is merely a pretrial ruling of how the Court would later rule at the trial itself.

All right. Your objection is noted for the record. Thank you.

Did Miss Kestler say she had to leave by--what time did she say?

Ten o'clock.

Ten o'clock. Thank you.

All right. Mrs. Robertson.

Michele Kestler, (402) called as a witness by the Defendant, pursuant to evidence code section 402, was sworn and testified as follows:

Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

Michele Kestler, M-I-C-H-E-L-E K-E-S-T-L-E-R.

Mr. Neufeld.

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

Good morning, Miss Kestler.

Good morning.

Miss Kestler, what is your current title?

Currently I am the laboratory director, chief forensic chemist for the Los Angeles Police Department.

And as of June 12th, 1994, what was your title?

I was the assistant lab director or one of the assistant lab directors for the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory.

And when did your title change?

Sometime in July. I don't recall the date.

Sometime July of 1994?

Uh-huh, that's correct.

Now, as the laboratory director do you have--and before that as the assistant laboratory director, do you have some day-to-day management responsibilities for the various units within SID?

Yes, I do.

And during that time period from June of 1994 to the present, was it also your practice to on occasion take responsibility for managing some of the larger cases?

Umm, manager--more oversee, not necessarily manage. Oversee and stay involved and help--cause them to proceed at a somewhat normal pace, as opposed to helter skelter.

Okay. In this particular case did you play a role in overseeing the processing and handling of this case?

I was attempting to assist in that process because at that time Mr. Matheson--there was no other assistant lab director, so I played a little larger role than I normally would.

Well, for instance, you were contacted by the police as early as June 13th at your home to be informed about what was going on; isn't that right?

Just to tell me that a large case had taken place.

And you had meetings shortly after that on June 15th with Marcia Clark and other people about the processing and handling of evidence, didn't you?

This is not relevant to the 402 issues, your Honor.

It is not real relevant, counsel. We are talking about September issues.

All right.

Well, Miss Kestler, this case was given a special designation of a confidential case, was it not?

Yes.

Okay. And as a confidential case are certain different procedures set up to maintain security of the testing of evidence and for the results of the testing of evidence?

The testing of evidence and--I'm not sure I understand your question. I can answer half and I'm not sure that is answering all of it.

All right.

As for the testing of evidence, no, the testing is still done under the same process.

What about the dissemination of test results and information? Is it shared differently in a case once it has been designated "Confidential"?

Well, normally the laboratory only shares the results with the investigating officers and with the prosecutorial agency. That doesn't change either, other than the results are held in a separate secured area, usually a supervisor's office, file cabinet some place until such time as it is over.

And in this case, is that the procedure that was utilized?

Yes.

Now, when you say that the test results are shared only with certain select people, in this particular case who were those people, first of all, at SID with whom the test results would be shared with?

Why don't we rephrase that question because it is vague.

Okay.

We are talking about a certain set of test results.

Let me back up one step.

All right.

Were you also designated as the laboratory director to be the point person at SID to be the recipient of reports governing test results in this case that were mailed to SID from outside agencies?

That is--I'm always the point person for all test results, only because they are addressed to me so that they don't go to the bomb squad or some other portion of SID who would not know what to do with them.

For instance you received--you had test results mailed to you in this case from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; is that right?

It is vague as to whether she physically received or were these just addressed to her.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Were the results that came from the FBI addressed to you, Michele Kestler, at SID laboratory?

It is unclear to me. I don't recall whether we actually received them directly in the laboratory or whether they went to the court at that time. I have forgotten.

Let me just see if this refreshes your recollection.

Counsel, I'm going to sustain the Court's own objection. I'm not interested in this.

I think, your Honor, it is going to become very, very relevant in about five minutes.

No. We are talking Cellmark here; we are not talking FBI.

All right. I can even explain it in front of--there is no problem, your Honor. The issue is that at the same time that the report was received from Cellmark they also received a report from the FBI regarding the hair and fiber analysis.

It is irrelevant.

Which was also leaked to the press the same day.

It is irrelevant. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not the Cellmark results--

All right. Fine.

Have you seen a report from Cellmark laboratory dated September 8th, 1994, that was faxed to Michele Kestler at the SID laboratory on September 12th, 1994?

Objection, vague as to time.

Overruled.

I saw a report dated September 8th, a hard copy of that report, that at some time was faxed, but it was not faxed to me, it is addressed to me. I do not know what the cover fax--who the fax was sent to or when.

You don't know to whom this was faxed?

No. Again, my name is on the header but I don't know what the fax cover sheet would have said, nor did I ever see it.

Your Honor, at this time I would like to introduce for the record for the Court's consideration of these issues a one, two, three, four, five-page report to Cellmark which is a report dated September 8th supplying results of DNA testing on the Bundy drops with a fax from Cellmark of September 12th, 1994--

And what is the--excuse me. Does this document have the imprints of the number that it was faxed to?

No, it has the imprint--

Which is the more important point.

The number that it was faxed from, that I see on this particular sheet--

The copy that we were provided by the Prosecution in discovery says where it was faxed from on September 12th, 1994. It is addressed to Michele Kestler at the Los Angeles Police Department.

All right.

But we also have, in conjunction with this, which we received in discovery and I would like to introduce it at the same time, because it came at the same time as part of the same discovery, was a cover sheet from the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division of a fax from Michele Kestler to Marcia Clark at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office dated September 16th, 1994. In other words, we only received--

I understand. Okay.

--a copy that the District Attorney--

Mrs. Robertson, what is the next in order for Defense exhibits?

1281, your Honor.

All right. The Cellmark report of--dated September 8th addressed to Miss Kestler will be 1281 and 1282 will be the fax of Miss Kestler to Miss Clark.

Your Honor, I wonder if I might have the opportunity to review these? I haven't seen them.

All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you have the staff make copies for everybody, please. It would speed things up in the future, if you are going to use documents, that we have multiple copies available.

I apologize, your Honor.

All right.

All right. Proceed, counsel.

I wanted to show her a copy of that document to see if it refreshes her recollection as to a report that she did in fact receive from Cellmark diagnostics, but--

She has testified she saw it.

Okay. All right.

She is familiar with what the report is. The issue is when did she get it and when did she see it.

Michele Kestler, you were at the office at certain points in time on September 12th, 1994; isn't that correct?

That's correct.

And you said that given the fact that this was a confidential case, only certain people at SID were given access to reports or to this report, if you will; is that correct?

Objection. That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

Overruled. Counsel, Mr. Walsh, I'm going to allow you to make objections concerning the scope; however, the Prosecution is the real party in interest and if they choose not to make evidentiary objections, that is their choice.

Thank you, your Honor.

Could you repeat the question?

Sure.

Given the fact that this was a confidential case, who at SID did you authorize to have access to the Cellmark report dated September 8th that was faxed to your office on September the 12th?

Assumes facts not in evidence, that she made such authorization.

Overruled.

Well, prior to this report coming, since you said this case had already been classified as--I'm sorry, had already been characterized as a classified case--

Objection.

Sustained. Rephrase the question. Confidential case.

I'm sorry, what?

Confidential case.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Confidential.

Since this case had already been characterized as a confidential case, what policy was in effect as to who at SID would have access to the reports that came from Cellmark?

Anyone that was involved with the serology aspects of the case, which at that time would have been off the top of my head, and there could have been more, because I don't remember who was doing what at what moment, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Yamauchi and those are the only two that I can recall at the time.

And of course yourself?

And myself.

And it was your practice to read the reports from Cellmark at some point after they were received; isn't that correct?

Not necessarily. Sometimes Greg Matheson would just fill me in on what it was.

Miss Kestler, do you recall having a discussion with me and Barry Scheck at the office of the city attorney on July 13th of 1995?

Yes.

And at that time, during that meeting, didn't you say that you personally read every single Cellmark and DOJ report that came to the office?

No, I didn't say that.

Okay.

I said I looked at them if we got them, but never got any DOJ reports.

Okay. So you said--in other words, that you did look at those reports that did come to the SID laboratory; is that right?

Yeah, but I didn't read every single one word for word, no.

Okay. So would it be a fair statement that you did look at this report which is dated September 8th and that was faxed to the SID laboratory to Michele Kestler at some point?

At some point I saw a copy of the fax.

Okay. So you are saying that the only three people at SID who would have access to this report would be Collin Yamauchi, Gregory Matheson and yourself; is that right?

Misstates the testimony; asked and answered.

Overruled.

Those are the only people; however, this report was faxed to someone. It was not faxed to me. I don't know who that individual is, so that individual would have to tell you who had access to that report.

Didn't you tell us on July 13th, Miss Kestler, that the person who actually received the fax at the fax machine was Gregory Matheson?

I'm assuming that, but I don't know that personally. I don't have personal knowledge of that.

Did Gregory Matheson tell you at any time between September 12th, 1994, and today, that he was the person who stood by the machine and personally received it?

Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

It is a 402 hearing, your Honor. I believe the Court can consider hearsay.

Sustained. The rules of evidence still apply, counsel.

As the head of this laboratory do you know who it was who received a fax on September 12th, 1994, at the SID laboratory?

No foundation for personal knowledge. Objection, calls for hearsay.

Overruled. Do you know?

I have no personal knowledge of who received it.

All right. Hold on. Hold on. Where is the fax machine located in the laboratory?

It is in the internal offices outside my office. It would be like back in your chambers.

So it is part of your office complex?

That's correct.

All right. And who is the SID person whose job it is to maintain the fax machine to keep it full of paper?

Well, at that point we had no one because I didn't have a secretary, so it was just the people within that office.

Proceed.

Did you at any time, as the head of the laboratory, undertake to find out through an investigation who it was who personally received the fax on September 12th, 1994, from Cellmark diagnostics?

Not relevant and calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

I can say that I was told by someone that they received it.

And who was that person?

Calls for hearsay, your Honor.

Overruled.

Greg Matheson.

Motion to strike.

Overruled.

Now, you said that you named the people at SID who were given access to that report. You also said a little bit earlier that people in the investigating agency were also entitled to have access to that report. Did I misunderstand you?

I didn't say they had access to the report. I said that we would have told them what was in the report if they had asked.

All right. And who were the people at the investigating agency who would be entitled to be told what the substance of the report was, had they asked?

No foundation.

Overruled.

Umm, the lead investigators, Tom Lange, Phil Vannatter, and I suppose if Captain Gartland had asked for it, he would have gotten it, for example.

Where were these reports kept once they arrived? "These reports" I'm referring now to Cellmark reports?

In Greg Matheson's office.

And where is Greg Matheson's office in relation to your office?

It is in the serology unit.

Well, is Greg Matheson's office still in the serology unit or has it moved?

It has moved now.

Okay. He is in the same suite as you?

Yes.

And would they be locked up in Mr. Matheson's office?

Yes.

Mr. Goldberg, does the Prosecution have a copy of this particular report dated September the 8th that has the telephone number to which it was faxed?

No. My copy doesn't have a telephone number to which it was faxed, but it does have the number from which it was faxed.

All right.

So it appears to be similar to the--I showed it to counsel.

Miss Kestler, do you know where the original September 8th report from--faxed report from Cellmark is?

No, I do not.

Actually, your Honor, this--the People's copy is better than ours, for one important reason. What it has on top of the line that shows the fax from Cellmark, it has a line dated September 16th showing that this same copy was faxed from SID Piper Tech to the District Attorney's office, so I think you probably would want a copy of their copy.

Although we already know that because it is on the facsimile transmission sheet.

I understand, but I'm just saying that every single page has an additional line which was not visible on our copies.

All right. Proceed.

Can I just give this to Deirdra?

That is my only copy.

I'm going to ask her to make copies.

Let's not waste the Court's time at this point to do that.

Fine.

Now, Miss Kestler, you learned, did you not, that some of the results reflected in that Cellmark report, which was faxed to SID on September 12th, appeared in newspaper articles on September 14th and September 15th of 1994? Do you know that?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

I know that at some time they appeared in newspaper articles. I don't know what date.

Well, not the exact day, but Miss Kestler, you are aware of the fact that it appeared in newspaper articles during that same week of September 12th, 1994; isn't that correct?

It also calls for a conclusion as to what was the source of the newspaper articles.

Sustained. "Results" is vague, counsel.

All right.

Did you learn, Michele Kestler, that on September 15th, 1994, the Los Angeles Times published an article in which it said that: "Final DNA tests in the OJ Simpson murder case point to Simpson as the source of at least some of the blood drops found near the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, sources close to the case said Wednesday."

Calls for hearsay. No foundation for personal knowledge.

Overruled.

I am not aware of that particular article. I just know there was some.

Miss Kestler, when you were interviewed by Mr. Scheck and myself on July 13th, 1995, didn't you tell us that Mr. Matheson showed you this report after it was faxed to him and that you were aware at about the same time that portions of the report had been leaked to the press? Didn't you tell us that on July 13th?

That is unintelligible.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Didn't you tell us on July 13th, 1995, Miss Kestler, that you learned that weeks--within a couple of days after--after September 12th, that portions of that report had been leaked and appeared in the press?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

I heard that some of the Cellmark results or some of the Cellmark work, which were also in that report, had been leaked to the press. I don't know if they came from that report or what their source was.

Okay.

Motion to strike the witness' answer as calling for speculation.

Overruled.

Now, you also--your Honor, do you have the copy that was--okay. This is the copy that is actually in evidence? All right. I will show you--what number is it, your Honor, that was marked.

The Cellmark report?

With the cover fax sheet to Marcia Clark.

The cover fax sheet is 1282.

Okay.

It has DNA discovery no 01728.

I'm going to show you, Miss Kestler, Defendant's 1281 and 1282 and ask you to take a look at it.

On the fax sheet from LAPD SID of the Cellmark report to Marcia Clark at the D.A.'s office on September 16th, does it indicate on the cover sheet that you are the sender of this report?

My name is down there at the bottom, but that is normally where I would put my name. This is not in my handwriting, so I don't recall directing someone to send it.

But it is your name that appears at the bottom of that cover sheet in its printed--

No, it is handwritten.

That is what I mean.

It is script.

It is not part of the typed form?

Right?

It was something that was written in?

Right.

Thank you. And Miss Kestler, when you learned that--

Excuse me, counsel. Do you know whose handwriting this is?

No, I don't recognize it.

Thank you. Proceed.

Miss Kestler, when you learned that some of the results from Cellmark that are contained in the report that you received on September 12th and had not been sent out to the District Attorney until September 16th appeared in newspaper accounts prior to the date that they were sent to Marcia Clark of the District Attorney's office, did you, as the head of that laboratory, undertake any efforts to find out whether someone at SID was the source of that information?

Calls for a conclusion as to the source of the newspaper accounts.

Overruled.

Well, I didn't--I didn't feel we were the source, so I did no investigation. I presumed the leak had come from Cellmark. That was my assumption.

Motion to strike. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

You said you didn't feel that you were the source of the leak. You mean SID, I take it; is that right?

That's correct.

Okay. What was your basis for making that conclusion.

It is not relevant, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Did you make any inquiry of the other two people who you said had the limited access to the Cellmark report as to whether or not they were the source of the leak?

That misstates the testimony that they were the only ones that had access.

Sustained. Rephrase the question. Just use the specifics, counsel.

Did you ask Collin Yamauchi whether he knew anything about how this information was leaked to the press?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

I don't believe I asked him specifically. I believe my question was in general to the individuals involved had they disseminated this report already somehow.

When you say you made this inquiry to the individuals involved, first of all, which individuals are you referring to?

I am assuming, because I don't recall, that it would be Greg and Collin primarily. Probably Greg and then Greg would have gone forth and asked the rest of the individuals.

Motion to strike as speculation.

Overruled.

And when did you have this inquiry of Greg Matheson?

I don't recall. Right around the time of the leak.

Did you make any notes at all about--about your conversation with Mr. Matheson that you had with him around the time of this leak?

Your Honor, this whole subject is not relevant to the 402 hearing.

Overruled. Overruled.

No, it wasn't important to me to do that.

Did you have more than one conversation with Greg Matheson about leak or leaks of DNA results in this case?

No.

Just this one conversation and you don't recall when and where it was?

No.

Other than a conversation with Gregory Matheson, did you conduct any investigation or inquiry or speak to any other individuals to try and ascertain the source of the leak?

No. I was convinced that it is not in the laboratory, so I wasn't concerned.

And other than based on a conversation with Greg Matheson and your own feelings, I guess you would have to characterize it, about the people who work for you, is there anything else which was the basis for your conclusion that SID was not involved in this leak?

Your Honor, this is not relevant.

Overruled.

No.

Now, on September 20th of 1994 Gregory Matheson obtained PGM results on the socks in this case. Are you aware of that?

That misstates the testimony in evidence in the trial. I think it was the 18th.

Excuse me, your Honor. At page 254--

Overruled. Overruled.

Okay.

Are you aware of that?

I am not aware on what date he got the results.

Now--

It is around that time.

--Greg Matheson would report directly to you; is that correct?

He reports directly to me. Are you--in what context are you referring?

Well, generally speaking, first of all, in terms of the hierarchy of personnel at SID, would he report directly to you or would there be anyone between Gregory Matheson and you?

He reports directly to me.

You said in this particular case, and correct me if I am mistaken, that you would be kept informed by Greg Matheson as results came in dealing with analysis of evidence in this case; is that correct?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Of anything significant, yes.

Okay. Well, would you agree that a PGM result on the socks conducted by Gregory Matheson in the serology laboratory suggesting that the bloodstain was consistent with Nicole Simpson Brown would be deemed--I'm sorry, with Nicole Brown Simpson, would be deemed significant in the case?

Yes.

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

And would it be the practice in this case for Mr. Matheson to immediately report to you the results of this PGM testing on the socks shortly after he achieved those results?

Not necessarily immediately, but within a reasonable amount of time, depending on his schedule--

Well--

--and mine.

Greg Matheson's office is in the same laboratory as yours, is it not?

This is not particularly interesting, counsel.

Umm, had Mr. Matheson achieved the PGM results on the socks on September 20th, 1994, would he have presented those results to you shortly thereafter, without putting a specific hour on it?

Calls for speculation and conclusion.

Sustained.

Did you become aware of the PGM results that Mr. Matheson achieved on the socks from Mr. Matheson?

Yes.

Are you aware that on September 21st, one day after Gregory math achieved the PGM results on the socks, it was reported on KNBC that DNA typing on the socks had reached the conclusion that the blood on the socks was consistent with having come from Nicole Brown Simpson?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

Also calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

I believe it was the day after. I did hear it. I think it was the day after.

The day after it was actually aired?

I believe it was the day after I found out, so that would have been the 21st.

Okay. The day after you found out about the PGM results you mean?

Correct.

Okay. And so if you found out about the PGM results on September 20th and you learned or you heard on the news this report by Tracie Savage on September 21st that there had been a DNA match on the socks between Nicole Brown Simpson and the blood found on the socks, did you at that point conduct any investigation to see whether or not somebody at SID had been the source of that leak?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

So with regard to the sock leak, it is your testimony that you actually spoke to both Collin Yamauchi and Greg Matheson?

That's correct.

Did you speak to them together or separately?

I don't recall.

And when you spoke to Greg Matheson did he tell you who, if anyone, did know about the PGM results?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

Umm, he told me one other person in the laboratory knew about it, and as far as everyone else, I made the phone calls, so--

Motion to strike; no personal knowledge.

Overruled.

Who was the one person in the laboratory that Greg Matheson said had knowledge about the PGM results?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

He felt that Erin Riley knew about it.

So other than Greg Matheson and yourself, the only other person who had been told the PGM results at SID was Erin Riley?

No, and Collin.

Okay. When you spoke to Collin Yamauchi, did you ask Collin Yamauchi any questions about who had access to the PGM results?

Well, no. The results--Mr. Matheson had the results. Collin didn't have the results.

Okay. Well--I'm sorry, and I apologize if I sound a little bit confused. Did Collin Yamauchi know the PGM results on the socks at any time during September 20th and September 21st?

Sustained. Calls for speculation, counsel.

After Greg Matheson told you that Erin Riley had also been told about the PGM results, did you have any inquiry of Erin Riley?

Just that she knew about them.

Did you then talk to or meet with Erin Riley to find out if she shared access to that data with any third party?

She indicated she had not.

Well, are you saying that you actually spoke with her?

Yes.

And when did that occur?

I don't know.

Did you make any notes of that meeting?

No.

Any notes of your discussions with Gregory Matheson about this leak?

No.

Based on your investigation, after you learned of the leak and the Tracie Savage--

Your Honor, in all due respect, I think there can be leaks of disinformation as well as leaks of information. Umm, this is something that this would not be the first time something like that happened in other situations.

Well, counsel, I'm the one listening to this.

I appreciate that.

Proceed. Proceed accordingly.

Based on your investigation had the results of the--

Assumes facts not in evidence, that she conducted any investigation.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Based on whatever inquiries you made after learning the PGM results of September 20th and learning of Tracie Savage's report on KNBC on September 21st, had those results been given to anyone outside SID prior to the time that Tracie Savage aired her story on the news?

Yes.

All right. And who had that information been given to?

The investigating officer, Tom Lange, and members of the District Attorney's office, Marcia Clark, and I believe Lisa Kahn was in her office with her.

Were you the person who personally called the District Attorney's office and gave them that information?

Yes, and Mr. Matheson was on another phone in the same room with me; not a speaker phone. We were just on two separate phones.

Was that information given to Marcia Clark or Lisa Kahn on September 21st or September 20th?

I believe the afternoon of the 20th.

And you said that the information was also given to certain officers in the police department?

One officer.

And you a say that was Detective Lange?

That's correct.

And when was that information given to Detective Lange?

Afternoon of the 20th.

After the--after your conversation with Miss Clark?

I believe it was before.

And were you the person who also--was that done by telephone?

Yes.

You are the person who actually communicated to Detective Lange the results of the PGM test?

Yes.

After learning of the--of the Tracie Savage story did you make any effort to find out whether individuals who you had given access to that information to, such as Detective Lange, provided access to that data to any third parties?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

No. I would have no reason to inquire of them.

No.

Did you share the results of the September 8th report that was faxed to you on September 12th with your husband?

Well, no. 1, it wasn't faxed to me even though I'm on the letterhead. It had to have a cover sheet, transmittal sheet. I never saw that fax until later. And secondly, no, I did not share it with my husband.

Well, when you say you never saw that fax until later, what do you mean? Later that day or perhaps the next day?

Several days later I think.

Well, what is the basis for your belief that it was several days later?

Because at some point someone asked me about the Cellmark results, weren't they in, and I went and asked Greg whether we had gotten the Cellmark results and he said yes, just a fax, and he showed me the fax.

Miss Kestler, at the meeting you had with Mr. Scheck and myself on July 13th, 1995, didn't you tell us that you learned of the September 8th report shortly before you saw the results published in the newspaper?

Well, that could have been shortly before. I don't--I don't think that is when I saw it. I didn't see the results in the newspaper anyway, because I'm sorry, I don't read the L.A. Times, I listen to KFWB so--

All right. You said that it was shortly before you had learned that some of the results had been published in the newspaper; is that correct?

Misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

Around that time.

Okay. So had the results been published in the newspaper as early as September 15th, then you may have learned about those results as early as September 14th? Would that be fair to say?

That would be fair.

Do you know who Commander David Gascon is?

Yes.

And who is he?

He is a commander with the Los Angeles Police Department.

And do you know what his particular role is at the Los Angeles Police Department?

Not relevant.

Is he still a commander?

I believe he has moved up in life.

Deputy Chief now?

I believe he is a deputy chief.

Okay. At the time of this--in September of 1994, he was a commander then?

I believe he was still a commander at that time and I believe he was in charge of press relations.

Okay. And had you had a professional relationship with David Gascon involving other cases in the past?

Very rarely I had spoken to him regarding other cases.

But you had spoken to him regarding other cases?

Not so much regarding cases. Oftentimes press relations gives us the go ahead to allow tours or allow press personnel to be interviewing us regarding other cases.

To your knowledge is Commander Gascon, friend of the reporter Tracie Savage, to your knowledge?

Sustained.

Objection.

Sustained. Counsel, isn't the issue whether or not she shared any of this information with then Commander Gascon? Isn't that the issue?

Now, just so we can have a very good clearer sense of this chronology, Miss Kestler, if the PGM result came in on September 20th and Tracie Savage ran a story on September 21st, isn't it true that the socks had not even been sent out yet for DNA testing as of September 21st, 1994?

Your Honor, it is argumentative as phrased.

Overruled.

It is also compound.

Overruled.

I don't believe they had been sent out as of the 21st.

In fact, wasn't there a meeting held on September 23rd at SID at which time a decision was made to send the socks out for testing, for DNA testing?

My understanding was that--or my feeling was, when speaking to Mr. Matheson on the 20th, that we were going to send them out for DNA; it was just a question of where and to--and what testing specifically--specifically what DNA testing would be done, and I don't recall the meeting you are referring to.

But you recall that there was some meeting held--

Your Honor, this isn't relevant.

Overruled.

Let me just show you a page.

May I approach the witness?

Mr. Neufeld, you have two more minutes, so use your time accordingly.

Well--

Miss Kestler, other than any inquiries that you made, are you aware that there was an internal affairs investigation into the source of leaks of DNA reports in this case?

I am aware only because I was interviewed.

And who interviewed you?

Calls for privileged information, your Honor.

Who interviewed you?

Yes.

Overruled.

I believe his name--oh, I hate to even suggest because I'm not sure I remember who it was. I could make a guess.

Okay. Don't guess. Approximately when did this interview take place?

That is another one I can't remember. It seems to me it was in the fall some time.

And, to your knowledge did Internal Affairs Division conclude the investigation into this matter?

Objection, calls for confidential information.

Sustained.

Was your interview by internal affairs into the leak issue transcribed, either with a tape--either by a reporter or by a tape recorder?

It was tape-recorded.

One moment, your Honor.

Miss Kestler, do you know Tracie Savage?

No.

You never met her?

No.

Have you ever spoken to her on the phone?

No.

Have you been the source of any information that have appeared in the newspapers or the press or television or radio about this case?

Absolutely not.

One moment.

Did you give the information to David Gascon?

No.

Based on your own investigation as the head of the SID laboratory, have you learned whether anyone else gave this information to David Gascon?

Assumes facts not in evidence, that she conducted an investigation.

Sustained.

One moment, your Honor.

Your Honor, there is just--I would ask that the witness provide at her earliest convenience, and I will finish my examination now, with the name of the individual at SID who did examiner her. And secondly, your Honor, once we obtain the SID report I would ask that she be allowed to be recalled--I'm sorry--I'm sorry, internal affairs report, that we be permitted to recall her to continue the examination.

You are not finished?

I'm finished. That one condition, that's all.

All right. All right. Miss Kestler, if you would, would you make inquiry as to who the detective or sergeant was from IAD who interviewed you and provide that information to Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh, will you provide that information to us, please?

Yes, I will.

All right. Miss Kestler, you are excused subject to recall.