--1319, a three-page document entitled "Collection and preservation of body fluids" and ask you to take a look at it.
Yes. But first, what I would like you to know is, is this a document that was given as a handout to the criminalists as opposed to something that would be part of the manual?
I'm not sure if this has been modified. I do know that this is a handout and then there is some narrative training that goes with this.
All right. Would you look at item 14 on page 2 and tell me if that is a current policy.
In the handout that was given to the criminalists who were going to be involved in the collection and preservation of body fluid evidence, doesn't it say in no. 14, "Collect as much of the stain as possible, especially if RFLP, DNA analysis may be necessary as a future analysis"? Is that the instruction that was given to the criminalists in this handout?
Mr. Neufeld, perhaps just for the jury's sake, you should yellow highlight that particular portion on page 2 so the jury, when they see it, will know what it was we were looking at. No. Just put it--
By the way, is it one of the responsibilities of the SID unit to maintain the integrity of those items of evidence for which there will be some kind of--some biological analysis? Is that one of the responsibilities of your unit?
Well, if there are items of evidence that are going to have to be analyzed let's say for serological analysis, for DNA analysis, would it be the responsibility of the criminalists at SID to maintain the integrity of those items so as not to let them get contaminated or compromised or things like that have happen to them?
If they were actually responsible for handling them. There's many items of biological evidence we never handle.
All right. Now, in this particular case, you went out to--you learned--I'm sorry--that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went out to the Bronco to collect bloodstains on the 14th of June. You learned that sometime after they came back; is that right?
And when you went out there on the 26th and you looked inside the Bronco, didn't you explain at that time--
--didn't you explain words to the effect that, "Oh, my goodness, look at all the bloodstain that is on this console," something like that?
I don't believe I exclaimed it. I did say that I was--I said, "Oh, there's still blood here," yes. I was surprised.
And you learned, did you not, that between June 14th, 1994 and August 26th that that Bronco had been gone into with people who did not have authorization to do so?
Okay. And you learned, did you not, that in fact, another member of the Los Angeles Police Department, Detective Muldorfer, conducted investigation into people who had unauthorized access to that vehicle? Did you learn that too?
Well, as the director of this laboratory, did you conduct any investigation into whether the evidence in that Bronco was in any way compromised, the biological evidence was in any way compromised during that two-month hiatus between June 14th and August 26th when you went into the Bronco?
Well, would it be a matter of concern to you as the person who's head of the laboratory that would conduct any kind of serological analysis on biological samples such as bloodstains, that the Bronco had not been kept in a secure state from June 14th--oh, I'm sorry--or from some time in the middle of June of 1994 until some time in August, 1994?
Uh, it would be a concern if there was a possibility that other than someone getting in and looking in it or something, if they would have been bleeding in the vehicle or something.
Okay. Did you undertake any investigation as the director of the SID--I'm sorry--of the SID criminalist laboratory to see whether or not anyone with biological fluids entered that Bronco during that two-month period?
Well, first of all, it wouldn't be my place to do the investigation. I did ask if the individual that apparently got in the car bled in the car for some reason, and I was told no.
How do you know that there was only one person who entered that Bronco during that two-month period?
What efforts did you undertake as the director of the criminalist laboratory responsible for the analysis of biological evidence to see how many people were in that Bronco during that period and what, if anything, they did while they were there?
Now, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the socks in this case, Miss Kestler. Within a week to 10 days after the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Barbara Wolf visited your laboratory; did they not?
And they came there to observe items that had been collected and were being stored at your laboratory in connection with this case; is that right?
Okay. When they came on June 24th of 1994, you refused to allow those experts to physically examine the items; did you not?
No. They could have looked at them under a microscope if they'd asked for a microscope. They could not handle the--physically touch the items. We would have provided a scope and moved the items around for them.
They were not allowed to handle any of the items even if they used appropriate protection?
Right. Because we had not looked for trace evidence at that point. It was very early on in the case.
Well, didn't you also at that point have a prohibition as to Defense experts being present when your criminalists initially examined the items of evidence in this case?
We have a policy in the laboratory that we don't allow Defense experts into the laboratory. That's correct.
Now, on June 29th, approximately two weeks after this case began, you participated in a review of the evidence then collected to see which items would be--would be subjected to different types of scientific tests; did you not?
The purpose of that review was not for that reason. We did an inventory essentially; and at the time, we made some notes as to what we might do with things. But the main purpose of that was not to decide what to do with the items. However, that was a secondary reason.
And I believe you said earlier that you started examining that evidence sometime around 2:30 in the afternoon and the examination continued until around 9:00, 9:30 in the evening; is that right?
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And didn't you in fact--well, that you began looking at those items at about 2:30 in the afternoon and you continued, the three of you, to look at those items until 9:00 or 9:30 in the evening?
I believe that's--I know we started about 2:30 in the afternoon. I can't recall what time we quit.
And the three people who were doing this were yourself, your now assistant director--is that Mr. Matheson?
Okay. And one of the items of evidence that you examined--I am sorry--one of the items of evidence that you observed and reviewed on that particular afternoon or evening was item 13, a pair of socks recovered from Mr. Simpson's home?
And after you examined that item of evidence as well as the other items of evidence, the three of you prepared a report; is that correct?
That's correct. But we didn't--I wish you wouldn't use the term "Examine" because we really didn't examine them. We did a cursory look to see what they--
No. We decided they were socks and that they were dark blue or black, and I can't even recall. We didn't really analyze them at all.
Didn't you entitle the report that you prepared that evening, "Summary of analyzed evidence by analysis performed"?
Uh, that's not what I would have entitled it. Is that on the data print-out, because I have the handwritten one that has no title on it at all.
I ask this be marked 1320. And what I will do, your Honor, since the only copy I have has certain markings on it, I will not publish it to the jury and I will provide a clean copy.
All right. She has the handwritten, you've got a typewritten. Foundation. Ask her to compare it, see if they're the same document.
Now you know why I don't have this one because I can't read it even with my glasses on.
Miss Kestler, before--you can finish looking at that--didn't you personally provide us with that typed report at a hearing in this case?
It's just that this one is sorted differently and I'm not sure it's the one I brought. It appears to be.
And isn't that typed report that your laboratory prepared entitled, "O.J. Simpson, summary of analyzed evidence by analysis performed"? Isn't that what it's entitled?
So it's your testimony that your own laboratory put the wrong title on the document that you brought to court and introduced at that hearing; is that correct?
It's not entirely wrong, but that was not the main purpose of that document. There are--some analysis had been performed.
All right. And the--in this report, comments were written by the three of you about these different items that were looked at during that date of June 29th, 1994; isn't that correct?
All right. Well, was a comment written next to item 13, the socks, that were taken from Mr. Simpson's home? I'm not asking you what the comment was. I'm asking you, was a comment written in?
And is the comment that was written in on the typed report--well, you don't have the typed report. Let's just deal with the handwritten report. Is the comment that was written by you three collectively on the handwritten report, "Dress socks"--
On that evening, when you were there observing these items of evidence, which of the three of you actually wrote down the notes on the handwritten report that you have in front of you?
All right. And are the comments next to item 13, were those written by Mr. Matheson?
So if it's not Mr. Matheson's handwriting, it's either yours or Collin Yamauchi's; is that correct?
And the comments that were written were written contemporaneous to the observations of these items; is that correct?
Okay. And is the comment that was written next to item 13, when the socks were looked at by the three of you, quote, "Dress socks, blood search, none obvious"? Is that what was written?
Oh, that's what's written. That's not--depends how you read it what it means though. So--
Isn't it a fact that each of the items that was looked at on that day was removed from the packaging it was in and laid out on a piece of laboratory paper?
Uh, I believe everything was taken out. I don't know whether they were taken completely out and laid out--you know, they were taken out, looked at and put back. They were not thoroughly examined by turning them over and those sorts of things.
Are you aware that Collin Yamauchi testified that each and every item was taken out and laid on a piece of laboratory paper?
And based on your experience, would you not know that if there is a bloodstain on black socks, one has to look somewhat carefully at those socks because of the color of them?
And yet, you say that when the socks were observed on that night, the comment you put on the report was, "Blood search, none obvious"; is that correct?
Your Honor, I would ask that the rest of the answer be stricken as nonresponsive. I simply asked whether the comment--
No. No. Wait, wait, wait. All she said was, "May I explain the answer?" That's all she said. But you interrupted her and talked over it. You're driving the court reporter mad. That's the only thing I would like you to do. That's all she said. Ask another question.
Oh, there's still blood here. I was surprised.
Dress socks, blood search, none obvious — Is that what was written?
Yes. I would expect to have to look very, very carefully.
I did ask if the individual that apparently got in the car bled in the car for some reason, and I was told no.
You're driving the court reporter mad. That's the only thing I would like you to do.