All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Miss Kestler, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Miss Kestler is--Michele Kestler is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Neufeld. And, Mr. Neufeld, you may complete your direct examination.
Miss Kestler, are you familiar with what has already been admitted into evidence as People's exhibit 163-H, the sub K, which would be the gray analyzed evidence envelopes which are used for items that are to be refrigerated? Are you familiar with these?
Well, I mean, when items of evidence are brought over to your laboratory for analysis, they may be serological items, they may be items for urine analysis, whatever, they would frequently be contained in those very envelopes; would they not?
Okay. And in fact, these envelopes and--are used to again maintain the integrity or the security of the items that are contained within. Isn't that one of the purposes?
And in fact, isn't there special analyzed evidence seals, sealing tape that is tamper resistant that is to be used on these envelopes to seal the contents of them?
Yes. Assuming they're not within another container. In other words, if you book this alone, then you use the tape on it, yes.
Yeah. In other words, if you're booking one vial of blood in this envelope by itself into evidence, this is my final packaging, then the seals go on this envelope.
It's your position, ma'am, that no seal is required on that envelope if the envelope is going to be put in a box with other items?
That's correct, because in that, it's closed and then the box is sealed. So it's only the outside container, the most outer container that is required to be sealed.
Can you focus in on the--can you focus on the two boxes? Can you blow those up a bit?
Okay. Do you see where it has instructions for the officer requesting the withdrawal of blood?
Your Honor, I'll object showing this to this witness if those are instructions for the officer, and this witness is not an officer.
Do you see where it says on the instructions for this gray envelope, "Item no. 4, when the affidavit is completed, sign below as a witnessing officer and seal the vial in this envelope using completed sealed evidence labels"? Do you see that?
All right. And that use of sealed evidence labels, in particular, using the tamper resistant analyzed labels is to be done to maintain the integrity of the vial that is inside the envelope; is it not?
Is there any procedure in writing that you can quote to us which says that that specific instruction on that envelope does not apply to this envelope if the envelope is going to a box with other items?
I don't know a procedure. I just know that that's property's procedure and that--because you have to seal the external container with--in other words, I wouldn't even use this envelope inside another package. I would use a plain brown envelope because you put a gray label on the outside of your box and seal the entire box because all the contents has to be sealed and protected, not the individual items inside. This is for--primarily deuces, arrestees or arrested for drunk driving cases where all you book is that envelope with one vial of blood and that's the entire con--that's the entire evidence in the case.
I'm not sure which blood and whose blood and how it was booked and final packaging.
Isn't it the standard procedure that for items that are to be refrigerated, which in this case would be a reference vial of fresh blood as opposed to a dry blood stain, that it would be placed in one of these gray envelopes?
If that was the only piece of refrigerated evidence. If it all fit in one envelope, yes, counsel. If not, you would use a box with a gray tag or a gray envelope taped to the outside.
I'd like you to assume for the purpose of this hypothetical that a reference vial of Mr. Simpson's blood was collected on June 13th of 1994 and was placed in a gray envelope very much identical to the one that is up on the screen.
In that situation, would it not be required that the tamper resistant analyzed evidence seal be placed on the outside of that envelope for security purposes?
If that envelope--again, as I said before, if that envelope was booked by itself by whoever booked it, then that booking individual would put the seal on the envelope.
To your knowledge of this case and as the person who managed it ultimately, was any other reference sample of whole blood taken into custody on June 13th, 1994?
Sustained. Assumes facts not in evidence in the way you stated the question as well.
All right. Do you have any knowledge at all that aside from Mr. Simpson's reference sample of any other samples of fresh blood or whole blood, liquid blood being taken into custody on June 13th, 1994?
And if that blood sample was the only sample placed in the gray envelope and there was only that one gray envelope on June 13th, wouldn't it be the appropriate procedure and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department to place the tamper resistant analyzed evidence seal on that envelope?
It's okay. No one, no officer that I know of or have ever seen or no one in my experience ever puts the seal on it until they complete their property report because they have to look at the vial. They then put their seal on before giving it over to the property custodian.
KEY QUOTEYou say they have to look at the vial. You mean they have to open up to make sure there's a vial inside?
They have to look, physically look at the vial to see what the vial says so they can transmit that information onto their property report.
And you're saying that--isn't it the practice of the Los Angeles Police Department criminalistics laboratory to from time to time break open a sealed evidence seal for one purpose or another to analyze evidence or to examine evidence?
Okay. So there is nothing to prevent a criminalist from opening a sealed envelope once it is sealed for the purposes of looking at what is on the vial and noting it on a property report, is there?
In fact, to your knowledge, at some point in time, were sealed tape, tamper resistant sealed tape placed on the envelope which had Mr. Simpson's blood in it?
I believe so. I don't recall if it was booked separately or in another container. I don't recall.
Now, Miss Kestler, what I'm showing you now is a photograph of the actual gray envelope that was used to contain Mr. Simpson's reference sample when the blood was drawn from him on June 13th of 1994. Can you see it?
And as you can see, at least when this photograph was taken, you can see the remnants of the sealing tape on the upper portion of the envelope; is that correct?
Okay. So at some point in time, sealing tape was placed on the envelope. Would that be a fair statement?
All right. Now, however, as you can see on the affidavit portion, on the instructions portion for the officer requesting withdrawal, even on this envelope, the one actually used in this case, it states that, "When the affidavit is completed, sign below it as a witnessing officer and seal the vial in the envelope using completed sealed evidence labels." Is that the instruction on that envelope which is up on the screen?
Okay. And are you aware, no. 1, that there's been no testimony in this case by Detective Vannatter who was present at that time when the blood was drawn--
Okay. Well, would it be an appropriate police procedure for no sealing tape to be placed on that envelope either by Detective Vannatter or Dennis Fung until several days after the evidence is collected?
Objection. Misstates the evidence. I object to this witness testifying to police procedures.
Would it an appropriate procedure of the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department not to put sealing tape on this envelope for several days after it's collected?
Would it an appropriate procedure of the Scientific Investigation Division for neither the police officer who instructed the nurse to collect this blood sample or for the criminalist who initially received this blood sample to put any sealing tape on that envelope for the first 48 hours after it has been collected?
I don't know what the time frame has to do with it. It would not necessary--it would not be unusual and I believe it is the practice of the Los Angeles Police Department officers and personnel of the criminalistics department not to seal evidence with the evidence tape, and I believe it's in the property manual, but I'm not positive--I'd have to look--to seal the evidence until you book it because, again, there's no reason to. It's in your custody.
What you're saying then is that the instruction that's included in paragraph 4 of the same envelope that was used in this case--
All right. Counsel--counsel, we've asked this question now in eight different forms.
KEY QUOTEWhen you say "Friend," I know him on the department as, you know, many people on the department are my friends.
Okay. And by the way, your husband also works for the Los Angeles Police Department, doesn't he?
Right. And robbery-homicide is the same division that Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange are in?
As the person who was ultimately managing this case as of at that time assistant director of the laboratory, were you aware that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went out to collect evidence from the Bronco on the 14th of June, 1994?
And would it be the standard policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department that the criminalists are to collect any and all potentially relevant evidence each time they conduct a search?
They're to make a judgment as to what they feel is relevant, yes, and then collect it.
Fine. But once they make the judgment that it's relevant, they're to collect everything that they conclude is potentially relevant, correct?
Well, everything that's relevant, but not necessarily all of it. If you have a huge pool of blood, you're not going to take all of it.
Right. But if you have a series of small stains as opposed to a large pool of blood, then it would be appropriate to take all of it, correct?
No. If you have--not necessarily. Not necessarily, no. But if you have a spatter pattern that appears to all be one pattern, you have to make these judgment calls. You're not going to necessarily take all of the blood from a pattern that you believe is all from one individual. You're going to take a representative sample. The same with a trail of blood. If it appears to all be from one individual and it goes for miles, you're not going to necessarily pick up every little stain along the trial.
I'm not talking about things for miles. I'm talking about things in a Bronco, okay, Miss Kestler, and the question is this.
It is. It is. The way the question was phrased, it wasn't confined to the Bronco. Restate the question.
I'm asking about the Bronco, and my question is this. Was it the standard practice and procedure at the Los Angeles Police Department crime laboratory on June 12th, 1994 that as to any particular stain that they collect--I'm not talking about huge pools of blood. I'm talking about a confined stain--that it was the instruction and procedure at your laboratory that they were to collect as much of a stain as possible if it was going to be used for DNA analysis?
Again, it depends on the size of the stain. You try to collect an adequate amount, and there--we've described that over the years in different amounts. When DNA first started, we said we'd like a quarter size sample. We're down now to a nickel size sample. So if that's what you're asking.
No one, no officer that I know of or have ever seen or no one in my experience ever puts the seal on it until they complete their property report because they have to look at the vial. They then put their seal on before giving it over to the property custodian.
When DNA first started, we said we'd like a quarter size sample. We're down now to a nickel size sample.
When you say 'Friend,' I know him on the department as, you know, many people on the department are my friends.
All right. Counsel--counsel, we've asked this question now in eight different forms.