All right. Miss Kestler, if you'd look at that item 1317, specifically the highlighted markings, and see if that refreshes your recollection. Just read it to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection as to any of the meetings that we discussed on Monday afternoon.
Miss Kestler, having looked at those notes of Mr. Matheson's and particular highlighted areas--
--does that refresh your recollection as to, for instance, whether you participated in a meeting about this case on June 15th with Marcia Clark and other members of the--of your criminalist laboratory?
I believe they look like Mr. Matheson--it looks like Mr. Matheson's writing. I'm not--
And it has l numbers on it. So that would have been provided by the laboratory. So I presume it came from us.
Well, all I'm asking you, Miss Kestler, is whether or not now, having looked at those notes, does that refresh your recollection that you did participate in a meeting on June 15th with other members of the criminalist laboratory and the Deputy District Attorney, Marcia Clark, concerning what to do with certain items of evidence.
It refreshes my memory as to exactly what it says here, that what we were going to do with--I don't recall which items.
Okay. And having looked at those notes, Miss Kestler, does it refresh your recollection that on the very next day, June 16th, you participated in another meeting about this case with Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung and Erin Riley to discuss--and others to discuss security measures for this particular case?
All I am asking is whether or not, having looked at the notes, does that refresh your recollection that on June 16th you did participate in a meeting to discuss security?
Okay. You participated in a discussion on the issue of security. All right. And having looked at those notes, does it refresh your recollection that on June 21st, you participated in a discussion with Mr. Fung and Mr. Matheson and Mr. Yamauchi regarding analysis and other generated requests concerning evidence in this case?
And by the way, approximately how many--and by the way, those are all meetings that were held or discussions held just in the first week about this case that you participated in; is that correct?
Okay. And approximately how many crime scenes are processed by your laboratory in a year, in the last year, for instance?
Okay. Crime scenes, as far as the criminalist going to crime scenes or the entire laboratory?
Oh, in terms of cases in which your laboratory became involved initially because there was a crime scene that had to be processed and then items were brought back to the laboratory and analyzed.
And of those 400, how many cases did you personally sit down for perhaps a half a dozen hours straight personally analyzing or examining items of evidence of those 400 cases?
I'm just asking you, of those 400 cases, putting this case aside, how many of those cases did you personally examine items of evidence for several hours at a time?
--didn't you--weren't you present with Collin Yamauchi and Greg Matheson in your office for the examination of many items of evidence in this case?
Yes. I thought you were referring to this first week that we were discussing earlier. But yes, I was.
Okay. And--well, the first week, second week or any week, Miss Kestler, how many of those other 400 cases did you personally participate in the examination of items of evidence which took several hours?
I have--I don't know if I can answer this the way you want it because I personally participated in the field in some of the collection of evidence in some of these cases--I don't know if that would be included--and then later the review of some of that evidence. Would that be included?
In this particular case, you spent approximately seven hours, would that be a fair estimate, on the evening of--on the afternoon and evening of June 29th, 1994, examining items of evidence in this case with Mr. Yamauchi and Mr. Matheson?
We did an inventory of the evidence, if I could use that term, and it took several hours.
Fine. Several hours. I think--would it be fair to say that you started about 2:00, 2:30 in the afternoon?
Okay. Now, my question is, on how many others of the 400 cases that your laboratory processed in the last 12 months did you spend seven hours back in the laboratory personally inventorying the evidence in the case?
Okay. And, in fact, not only did you do that on June 29th in this case, isn't it also true that on August 26th, you personally collected evidence in this case at the Bronco?
And on August 26th, Miss Kestler, when you personally collected evidence in the Bronco, where was the Bronco?
I always get this wrong. So let me look at my notes if you will. I can never remember the name. Keystone tow in Van Nuys.
And now, just so I'm clear on this, the keystone auto garage where this occurred, that's not a public place, is it?
No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I apologize. The--the Bronco was kept in a secured area at the keystone garage; is that correct?
And unlike the time when evidence was collected by criminalists in this case at Bundy and at Rockingham, this was in an enclosed area at the keystone facility; was it not?
In other words, the media couldn't stand there and simply take pictures from the sidewalk or from the street, could they?
Now, and you, namely the SID unit, the criminalist laboratory ran that--that inspection of the Bronco on August 26th, didn't you?
Okay. And when you did that on the 26th, isn't it true that a photographer from life magazine was permitted to be present during that--that outing on the 26th?
And, in fact, during that time while you were collecting evidence at the Bronco in this secured yard belonging to the keystone company, were there times where you personally were actually posing for pictures for the life magazine photographer?
Is it a normal practice when members of your laboratory that you direct are collecting evidence, not in public places, but in secure areas such as the keystone garage, that media photographers are permitted to be present to photograph what happens?
Is it a normal procedure for the SID unit--for the criminalist laboratory that you were the director of to permit media photographers to be present while you are collecting evidence in a murder case at a secure, unpublic, nonpublic facility?
So in your days as the--by the way, before you were named the director of the laboratory, how long had you been the assistant director?
Okay. From 1982 to the present, other than this case, has there ever been a single instance where criminalists from your laboratory were collecting evidence at a secure nonpublic facility where a magazine photographer was permitted to be present to photograph the collection of evidence?
Not to my knowledge. I have never personally permitted anyone including in this case.
Well, when the magazine photographer showed up, did you tell him that he wasn't permitted and therefore had to leave?
I asked him and I was told that that was approved by a higher authority than me.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Were you--were you--to your knowledge, who was the higher authority that authorized this?
And you made no attempt to call the chief of police to explain that it would not be consistent with your policies and procedures to have that magazine photographer present?
Well, once I'm ordered by the chief of police to do something, unless it's really--I know he had been doing other things on this case. So it's not something I would question, and he had someone with him and he was directed by that individual as to what he could do and what he couldn't do.
Now, at some point in time, in June of 1994 or July of 1994, did you have a discussion with Dennis Fung concerning the fact that Andrea Mazzola was named as the officer in charge on some of these crime scene forms?
I don't recall when I had a discussion with Dennis Fung, but several of us had a discussion with Dennis.
And when you had that discussion with Dennis Fung about this particular matter, did you advise Dennis Fung that it would not look very good if it came out in the grand jury that Miss Mazzola was--who was a trainee was seriously involved in this case?
Well, at the time that you met with Dennis Fung and had a discussion concerning Miss Mazzola being listed on the crime scene form as the officer in charge, was it a concern to you that this might get out; namely, that she was a trainee and listed as the officer in charge?
Now, prior to your taking the witness stand in this case, did you--were you interviewed by Mr. Scheck and myself?
And did that meeting occur at the office of the counsel for the city of Los Angeles?
And was it true that the only way you would agree to meet with us before you testified was with your counsel present? Is that true?
That was not at my--partly, I was concerned, but part of it was the city attorney wanted to be there.
Are you saying, Miss Kestler, that you don't have the--the ability, the authority, the discretion to meet with lawyers from the other side without counsel present should you decide to?
I do to some extent, but when they advise me that they'd like to be there, they're the attorneys, so I usually take their advice.
So you took their advice and you decided that you would only talk to us if the attorneys were present?
Now, has members of the District Attorney's office wanted to speak to you before you testified today?
And when you met with Mr. Goldberg from the District Attorney's office and you met with Mr. Darden from the District Attorney's office, did you always have counsel from the city present?
All right. When you met with Mr. Darden to discuss this case, did you have counsel from the city present?
When you met with Mr. Goldberg each time, did you have counsel for the city present?
And at that meeting where Mr. Scheck and I interviewed you on July 13th, didn't you say at that time that--
Didn't you say during that meeting that you were concerned that the fact that Andrea Mazzola was listed on the reports as the officer in charge?
I'm just asking--right now, I'm asking if you did say that on July 13th. Is that correct, that you did say that to us, ma'am?
I'm asking you, did I say--are you asking me did I say I was concerned or was I concerned that it got out?
I'm asking you now, did you say to us on July 13th that you were, in fact, concerned with the fact that Andrea Mazzola was listed on these crime scene sheets as the officer in charge?
Okay. Now, let me go back and ask you a few questions about your own training for your current position, ma'am. Before joining the Los Angeles Police Department, did you work in the public sector or in a private laboratory?
And when you worked in the private sector in the laboratory, did any part of your work concern serology?
Did any part of your work concern the methods for collecting and preserving bloodstain evidence?
Now, you're the chief criminalist in a unit of approximately how many criminalists?
Would you agree that one of the ways that people in science advance is through publication of their research?
Uh, if--not necessarily research and not necessarily publication. That's one way to do it, yes.
Okay. And how many articles have you personally authored, you know, in the last 20 years?
Would you agree, Mrs. Kestler, that if you are managing a discipline, okay, or a certain program in the laboratory that you yourself may not be an expert in, that it's important to have people with appropriate qualifications running that program as your subordinate?
Well, you mentioned that it was during the time that you were the assistant laboratory director that a DNA program was implemented at your laboratory; is that correct?
And would you agree, Miss Kestler, that proficiency in molecular biology is certainly an area of science which is relevant to forensic DNA typing?
And as the assistant director of the criminalistics laboratory at the time that the DNA program was created at SID, did you go out and hire somebody with a doctorate, Ph.D. in biology to help set up the program?
Did you as the assistant director of the SID criminalistics laboratory play a role in helping to set up the DNA program?
It's hard for me to say. I would say yes at this point, but I would like you to be more explicit if you could.
Okay. Well, in other words, just so I understand you correctly, ma'am, are you saying you did play some managerial role in the creation of the DNA program at the LAPD?
I still don't understand--I don't really understand your question. I have trouble answering that it's just a flat yes.
Well, what does it mean to you, you played some managerial role in the creation of this program?
What it means to me is that in creation of that role or in that role, I played the part where I listened to my people, I looked at what they were doing as far as what was required from Twgdam. I insured that they were sent--one of the people that was in fact in charge of setting up the program went to the FBI for several months and, in fact, did research for them under their DNA program and, if you will, was blessed by the FBI to do DNA and came back, and that individual under the guidance of supervisors who also went to classes in DNA and came back and set up the program.
Okay. So you managed the people who undertook all those efforts that you just described; is that correct?
And it was your decision in a sense as the manager to send all those people to the FBI and other places to get the training that you deemed appropriate; is that correct?
Right. And I also look for insight from them and other managers as to what programs would be good for them to attend.
Did you bring in a single outsider with a Ph.D. to evaluate your program once it was set up but before you actually took on casework?
Not really brought into the laboratory, but via the fact that the FBI looked at what our individual people were going to do before they did it. So they didn't actually visually come in and see the facility, but they looked at how we were going to do it.
I'm not asking you about the FBI and FBI agents. What I'm asking you about, Miss Kestler, is, did anyone who is a Ph.D. in this area come visit your laboratory, visit your laboratory and inspect the set up, okay, and give it that type of critical examination in person before you actually went on line accepting cases?
I'm not sure that the people that came actually physically into the facility had Ph. D's. I do know that the person we consulted from the FBI was not an agent and, yes, he did have a Ph.D..
All right. Now, would it be fair to say that it would be one of your desires as both the assistant director since 1982 and more recently, the director of the criminalistics laboratory, to make it a modern and scientifically advanced laboratory?
I feel we would always like to stay a modern and--laboratory. We are modern in our techniques if you will. Unfortunately, some of our facilities are not brand new.
As a laboratory director in the state of California, are you familiar with the manner in which various crime laboratories are run throughout the state?
Well, let me ask you this. Are some of the crime laboratories--do some of the crime laboratories have a civilian head whereas other crime laboratories have a head who is a sworn police officer?
And your particular laboratory, the SID division, is not run by a civilian, it's run by a sworn police officer; is that correct?
Okay. The Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department does not have at its head a civilian, does it?
Okay. And during the investigation of evidence in this case, the head of the laboratory was a police officer; is that correct?
I'm sorry. I withdraw that. The head of the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department was a police officer; is that right?
All right. And--by the way, Miss Kestler, there's been some discussion by other witnesses about laboratory accreditation?
The Los Angeles Police Department laboratory, the one that you're the director of, is not an accredited laboratory by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, is it?
Okay. There are other laboratories in the greater Los angeles area that are accredited; isn't that true?
Now, just as laboratories can be accredited, Miss Kestler, is it also true that the level of performance of individuals can be evaluated by certification?
Just as laboratories can be accredited, can't individuals have their own performance level evaluated through a certification program?
They can be certified. I'm not sure I would call it performance level. I would say that they can be certified--
And that general knowledge exam was offered for many years by the California association of criminalists; is that correct?
I want to say it's just the last five or six years. It's a fairly recent program.
All right. And one of your responsibilities, I think you said the other day, as the first assistant director of the laboratory and now the director of the laboratory is to make overall evaluations of the employees who work for you; is that correct?
I'm not sure I said that the other day. But one of the things I do is I look at evaluations of the employees that work for me. I don't personally write all of them, but review each one.
And as the person in charge of these two individuals, are you aware that neither Mr. Fung nor Miss Mazzola have been certified by the California association of criminalists in the discipline of criminalists?
Now, with other witnesses many months ago in this case, Miss Kestler, there was discussion about the field unit crime scene manual. By the way, have you followed any of the testimony in this case, Miss Kestler?
Okay. And would you agree that one purpose of having a standardized manual of policies and procedures would be to make this particular aspect of criminalistics, namely, crime scene investigation, a standardized science instead of a group of freelancers that are doing what they wish to do at a particular crime scene?
I think one of the greatest needs for policies and procedures is to standardize as guidelines--obviously, situations arise where you can't always follow policy--the policies and the procedures and make sure that the procedures are in writing so that people can't question that they didn't know how to do something.
Okay. And is it ultimately your decision as the now director of the criminalistics laboratory to implement a formal manual of field unit crime scene procedures and policies? Would that be one of your responsibilities?
Well, once the policy manual has gone up through the chain and approved--it's being revised right now--my final blessing along with the assistant director's will be the final say, and it will be implemented--if you will, I won't implement it personally, but, yes, it will be.
Which I believe, your Honor, has already been marked for identification as Defense exhibit 1071.
Okay. Is there a manual that was started by members of your laboratory to deal with standardized procedures for crime scene investigation?
That's when it was prepared, yes, I believe. I'd have to see it, but it was around 1992.
And in the three years since 1992 when the rough draft was prepared, have you personally reviewed that manual and passed on it?
I began to review it and discovered many things that I either disagreed with or didn't like and sent it back for revision. However, we didn't have a supervisor in that unit since 1992. So it has unfortunately, due to other time constraints, had to wait.
And so are you saying, Miss Kestler, that since 1992, when you made those initial criticisms and comments, that no one in the laboratory has made any effort to address those criticisms and make the necessary changes?
No. That's not what I said. I said due to time constraints, it's never been completed. Lots of people have made some effort at working at it.
And so now in 1995, more than three years later or three years later, this manual still has not been implemented; is that correct?
And because it has not been implemented, does that mean that there is no formal compulsory written procedures and protocols for criminalists to follow who go out to crime scenes to collect and preserve evidence?
No. There's handouts that they're given at the time of their training, and if any new procedures come on line, those handouts are provided to them.
But would you agree, Miss Kestler, that the handouts that are occasionally provided to the criminalists are certainly not as extensive and complete as are the subjects covered in this manual?
Now, are some of the items that are contained in the manual--just so I understand this, Miss Kestler, are you saying that some of the items in the manual have also been distributed as handouts to the criminalists?
I can't say for sure that they're in that particular manual that you have, but they have handouts. Ultimately they will be incorporated into the manual. I can't at this time tell you.
Okay. You mean, it's sort of on an individual basis. Some may, some may not. It would depend on the individual item?
Okay. Well, as of June 12th, 1994, was it an established procedure at the SID unit that all reports generated as a result of field investigation are to be approved by a supervisor?
It depends what report. We may be talking apples and oranges here. What report are you referring to? Because it may not be a report. It may be a checklist or something.
Let me show you this Defense exhibit 1071, volume 7, page 1, and ask you whether or not this is one of the handouts that has been given to the criminalists as a procedure that they are expected to follow.
Was it required that prior--that as part of the review of the reports, that the supervisor shall inspect all the case notes and photographs of the criminalists to insure that the notes are accurate and complete?
I'm still not sure--you keep talking about this report that's supposed to be approved, and I don't know what you're referring to because then you refer to case notes, and the only things they have is case notes and photographs.
Let me clarify that. First of all, are the property reports, the official Los Angeles Police Department property reports that criminalists fill out, are they to be approved by a supervisor?
Okay. And prior to the approval of the actual property reports, does the supervisor also look at the note packages of the criminalists to make sure that those notes are correct and complete?
All right. Well, even if it's done at a different point, are the notes taken by the criminalists, in this case, those crime scene checklists and the crime scene notes and the inventory and all those notes that the jury's already heard about in this case, are those notes at any time reviewed by a supervisor?
And the reason they're reviewed, one of the reasons they're reviewed is to make sure they're complete and accurate; is that correct?
Again, it's a checklist. So some things, if it's not in there, you can't always go back and complete it. I mean, it's not something, unless you have a good memory, that you can go back and fill in if you forgot to.
Was it the established procedure at the Los Angeles Police Department as of June 12th, 1994, that if the--
Was it the established procedure and policy of the Los Angeles Police Department as of June 12th, 1994, that once the notes are reviewed by a supervisor, that if there are deficient note packages, they shall be corrected and supplemented by the involved employees and subsequently filed or stored? Was that the policy of your unit?
Yes. If they can be supplemented and changed. In other words, like I said, you can't always remember something. So obviously you can't supplement it at that point.
Sustained. Why don't you establish a foundation with this witness before you put it up.
Okay. You're familiar, as the director of the laboratory, with the forms that are used by the criminalists out in the field when they are conducting a crime scene investigation; are you not?
And those forms have different boxes which can be filled out providing different information about what's collected; is that correct?
And the forms, for in--the forms, for instance, have a place to be filled out by the criminalists for each item to give its sample number, for instance; is that right?
And the form also has a place to note whether there's an id photo taken with scale and id; is that correct?
And the time an item is collected and what it's been packaged in; is that correct?
And to know what id markings are put on the item or the packaging; is that correct?
Showing you exhibit 1091 which has already been identified by Dennis Fung as the form filled out in this case for the first 16 items of evidence collected and ask you, no. 1, is that the kind of crime scene form that you just described to me?
Okay. And it's one of the forms that are used by your subordinates at the criminalistics laboratory; is that correct?
Yes. This is a very old one, but it's one of the ones that have been used in the past.
Okay. And you did say that it would be the policy and practice to--for a supervisor to evaluate these forms and to the extent they need to be corrected or supplemented, that is a standard practice; is that correct?
Now, on this particular form, there are many boxes that are not filled in; is that correct?
And by the way, at any time prior to today, have you ever even in passing looked at the forms filled out by Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung in connection with this case?
Okay. And as you see, there is no notation as to the id photo with scale and id. Those boxes are all empty; is that correct?
And as you read over from left to right, although they have filled in the location of the item and the item collected, there is no indication as to who collected each item; is that correct?
And it also has a box after time--by the way, do you notice that for some of the items, they don't even record the time that the item is collected?
And do you also notice that for all the items, they omit to say what it was packaged in? Do you see that?
And do you also see that the boxes requiring--I'm sorry--the boxes calling for id markings--by the way, when they say "Id markings," do they mean what markings were used to identify the individual item?
That's a term that's used characteristically, goes way back to when all items, primarily before biological fluid, collection and things like that, were marked or attempted to be marked if they weren't going to be fingerprinted or something with some sort of id mark of your own. It could be--
So if my name was Peter Neufeld and I was the officer collecting it, I might put a "PN" on it?
Yes. You might put "PN" or I might put "MK" or I might put an American flag, whatever--whatever you felt was unique to you so that you could id it later once it was out of the package.
And the reason that that procedure has been in existence for so many years, Miss Kestler, is because it's very important to note very early on who the person is who collected a particular item to begin that chain of custody; isn't that correct?
It's important to know who collected it. It's now not as relevant to mark each individual item because you can't essentially because it's going to be processed either for fingerprints. Obviously cloth squares with blood, you can't mark those, so--but that's the basic philosophy behind it, that you would--no, it's more that you would be able to id it later.
I guess you could say that. I wouldn't necessarily say it begins the chain of custody.
Well, isn't one of the reasons then to maintain the integrity of the individual item?
Does that term "Maintaining the integrity of an item" have meaning to you as director of a crime laboratory?
Well, the term has meaning, but I don't see how it relates to the--to marking the evidence as far as the integrity of the item.
I suppose you could relate it to the integrity of the item that if you marked--if you were able to mark something, that you would always know that was in fact the item.
Well, exactly. And so you would know that it didn't get mixed up, for instance; is that correct?
All right. And you said that obviously when you're getting into biological specimens, you can't actually mark the bloodstain itself; is that right?
Yes. In some way, either on a seal or on the envelope or even on the internal bindle if you will.
All right. But when an item is collected at a crime scene, there's no seal that's placed on the coin envelope at that time; isn't that correct?
That's correct. Most of these items are not marked at the crime scene anyway. They're marked before they're packaged for final booking.
And you would want to mark whatever packaging the item is in, is that correct, at some point in time?
And you would want to be able to identify that package from the moment you first collected it at the crime scene so it doesn't get mixed up or confused with other items. Wouldn't you want to do that?
I'm asking whether or not you would want to put certain identifying information on a package so it will not get confused. We'll get into specifics after. I'm just asking the general question first.
Now, in contrast to the manner in which Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola filled out their notes, you mentioned that you personally participated in the collection of evidence--
And when you participated in that, you too filled out a field note; is that correct?
Now, for every item that was collected on August 26th when you participated in the collection, was the id photo box filled in?
And was every box that asked the question whether there was a photo with scale, was that also filled in when you collected evidence on August 26th?
And by the way, you did not collect all the items on August 26th. Some items were collected by another criminalist; is that correct?
Okay. And on the same sheet that you filled out on August 26th, Miss Kestler, in the box that says "By whom it was collected," when it was an item that you personally collected, did you put your initials down?
And for items where you directed another criminalist to do the collection, were his initials put in the box?
And for each and every item that was collected by you and the other criminalist on August 26th, was the time the item was collected filled in?
Yes. I did this a little differently than I normally do because the items weren't collected in numerical order. Often, I put in the time I start and the time I finish.
Miss Kestler, the question is, isn't it a fact that when you collected evidence on August 26th, you filled in every single box on the field note?
Well, there's a couple I didn't because it was approximate. As you see down at the bottom, I wasn't sure, so where it says approximate--but I guess you could say it's filled in.
To your knowledge, as the person who was ultimately in charge of evaluating the performance of your employees, at any time sat down with Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola to take some remedial action so that they would fill out all the boxes when they prepare a crime scene form?
Okay. Did you direct, as the director of the laboratory, a subordinate of yours to take some remedial action with them?
There's been some further training or updating on the importance of crime scene notes and importance of filling them in even after the fact so that you can remember, because frankly I have a terrible memory. So that's why I do it.
Was this just a generalized training program for everyone in the laboratory or other remedial action that was taken in direct response to what Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung did or did not do in this case?
It had nothing to do with taking remedial action for what Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung may have failed to do in this case?
No. Because we've been doing a lot of small corrections, if you will, by the supervisors. So we decided to have updated training, which is an ongoing program we have.
I asked him and I was told that that was approved by a higher authority than me.
This would be the only case?
No, it is not.
Yes. But that's a different question than you asked me earlier.
I personally did not, no.