Miss Kestler, you said that--earlier that--that when you did the initial examination of items for hair and trace and the serological testing back in June and early July 1994, that at that point it time, that Defense experts were not allowed to be present; is that correct?
I'm not sure that it was done in early June or July and you'd have to be more specific what you're referring to and where we did it.
Well, for instance, Dr. Lee was not allowed to be present, Dr. Henry Lee was not allowed to be present during the initial examination of items of evidence by people in your laboratory during the month of June; isn't that correct?
Okay. And in fact, isn't it true that the reason there was certain representatives of the Defense team present on August 26th is because the court ordered the SID to make--to give us access to be present at those testings?
I'm not aware of that. I didn't set up the search of the--are you talking about the Bronco, August 26th?
Are you aware of the extent to which it required court orders from this Court to have--
You said that when you looked at stains in the Bronco, they were smeared and that was consistent with having been swatched; is that correct?
Some of them were smeared, and within that smear, there was some obvious additional smearing or rubbing and it could be, yes, it could be consistent with swatching.
Could be consistent with swatching. It could also be consistent with someone rubbing their hand on a stain; could it not?
It could be consistent with something else. I wouldn't say rubbing your hand on it, no.
It could be consistent with someone rubbing something else on those areas other than a swatch?
And when you looked at those smears on the console, for instance, on August 26th, you don't know how they got there, do you?
I know that they're consistent with the previous photographs from the original search of the Bronco. They appear to be present in the same--
And when you looked at those smears on August 26th, you can't say when they got there, can you?
And finally, calling your attention to June 29th when you, Collin Yamauchi and Greg Matheson looked at the items of evidence in this case, you said on cross-examination, quote, "We weren't looking for blood," unquote, in reference to the socks. Is that your testimony?
I don't know--your Honor, I know we marked the typed version. I don't know if we marked the handwritten version.
In fact, I'm only going to mark one page which is going to the page that refers to item 13.
Okay. Is--item 13, would that be the--that's the third item described on that document; is that right?
Now, what I would like you to do, Mr. Harris, is could you please focus in on the comment box for item 13, the whole box on that and blow it up as much as you can.
You said I believe on cross-examination, quote, "We weren't looking for blood with reference to item 13." Is that your testimony?
That means that I was sitting from here to approximately where your Honor is sitting (Indicating), and to me there was none obvious.
Uh, probably within about--oh, I don't recall. I would guess within a couple of feet, you know, in front of him like here (Indicating).
Okay. And Mr. Yamauchi, he was the person who was actually removing the items of evidence from their packaging so that they could be looked at; isn't that correct?
Well, when you went like this (Indicating), were you indicating that he and Mr. Matheson were taking turns doing that?
And they were sitting at a conference table that's in your office; is that correct?
And the items were being placed on that conference table in front of them; is that correct?
And the words "Blood search," those are the words that appear for item 13 in the comment column, correct?
Potatoes? Well, that sort of engenders that kind of answer, counsel. All right. Ask it again.
KEY QUOTEYou were looking--this whole examination--I'm sorry--this whole review of these items was for serological purposes, correct?
I show you I think it's 1813? 1318. I'm sorry--1318, which is titled summary of analyzed evidence by analysis performed; is that right?
So, Miss Kestler, there were many items of evidence that were looked at at this point where no analysis, no serological analysis had as yet been performed; is that correct?
All right. Do you see, for instance, on item 30--on item 37, glove, do you see that?
In this report, didn't you note in the comments section when you observed red stains or blood drops on certain items that you were looking at, didn't you make those notations in the comment section for other objects and other items?
If they were clearly obvious by the naked eye. This is so simple. You know, it was one of those things where the dark socks, you couldn't see anything, so we decided to search for blood later. On the gloves, the red drops were obvious.
So what you're saying is that when you did see blood, you did note the presence of blood in the comment box next to the item; is that correct?
And for this one, what you noted in the comment box was simply "Blood search, none obvious," and that's the only thing it says in that box other than "Dress socks"; isn't that correct?
Miss Kestler, you're telling us that it says, "We are going to do a blood search." Where does it say in that box, "We are going to do"? Could you please point that out in the box?
KEY QUOTEArgumentative, counsel. Counsel, it's argumentative. We've gone over this. It's obvious. The jury can read what's there.
If it was obvious. This is so simple. You know, it was one of those things where the dark socks, you couldn't see anything, so we decided to search for blood later. On the gloves, the red drops were obvious.
You weren't looking for potatoes on those socks, were you?
Potatoes? Well, that sort of engenders that kind of answer, counsel.
Miss Kestler, you're telling us that it says, 'We are going to do a blood search.' Where does it say in that box, 'We are going to do'? Could you please point that out in the box?