All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Ragle, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Larry Ragle is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your cross-examination.

Thank you.

Mr. Ragle, where we left off is, you had just given us a definition of an evidence technician. And is it fair to say that these people are people who do not have criminalistic degrees, but have received some training in how to go to a crime scene and collect evidence?

That's correct.

And is it true this these evidence technicians are used very widely probably throughout this country and police departments in collecting evidence at scenes, including homicide scenes?

I believe every type of crime scene.

And that's also true of the sheriff's department when you were working there; is that correct?

That's correct.

In fact, is it true that most of the field work that was done by the sheriff's department was done by evidence technicians, not criminalists?

Numerically speaking, yes.

And that was mostly for cost reasons; is that true?

Yes. Not entirely, but for the everyday type of crime scene. For homicides and other more complicated crimes, there very often is a type of evidence that a criminalist has had special training in. For instance, blood spatter interpretation, explosive debris, arson and drug--clandestine drug manufacturing laboratories that the id technicians or field technicians haven't had. So that's why they would--they, being criminalists, would go to the more complicated crime scene.

Where there was special types of evidence; is that correct?

That's correct. Special problems.

But you did have evidence technicians, noncriminalists doing things like collecting blood evidence, didn't you?

Yes.

And you had them collecting evidence that would later on be used for hair and trace analysis?

Yes.

And you then analyzed that kind of evidence--I don't mean you individually--but your lab, and you presented your findings in court, even though it had been collected by an evidence technician; is that correct?

That's correct.

And is it your view that that is acceptable from a forensic standpoint?

If the evidence technician has been trained properly, yes.

Is it also your view, sir, that even a police officer or a police officer is qualified to collect biological evidence that's going to be submitted to the laboratory for analysis?

If they had been trained properly, yes.

And is it also your view that a police officer would be qualified to collect evidence that's later on going to be submitted to the laboratory for hair and trace such as articles of clothing?

With the same stipulation, yes.

And although it is more expensive, would you agree that it is preferable to send criminalists to do the crime scene investigation as opposed to crime scene technicians?

If the need is there, yes.

Now, getting back to the issue of qualifications, sir, when I asked you about these various books that you--some of which you're familiar with or many of which you're familiar with or heard of, is the reason for reading these books, this kind of material is so that a criminalist can maintain current with what is going on in the forensic science community?

Not entirely. Books of this nature are never really current because by the time they're written, new stuff has come out. Journals such as the journal published by the American Academy and by the--even the newsletter, the California Association of Criminalists and the journal produced in England, the forensic science societies journal in England are current. They're contemporaneous what's going on within the last few months.

But it is important to read the literature though to understand what is going on in the forensic science community, what the capabilities are, what the issues are, how to do things, et cetera?

A textbook like this, the type that you referred to, is particularly important for somebody who is being trained or being introduced into the field.

And isn't it also true that in the area of crime scene techniques or crime scene investigation, there aren't a lot of recent articles in the journals with respect to how to investigate a crime scene because it's really not a hot topic so to speak in the forensic science community?

They're more in the British publication than in the American Academy. In the American Academy, they have some case-related articles describing evidence at the scene and things such as that, but most of that is research.

And since you knew that you were going to be testifying here about crime scene investigation, did you feel that it was important to review all of the key literature that's available on the issue of crime scene investigation in preparation for your testimony?

Objection. Vague as to what he considers key literature.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, there are certain books and publications that discuss crime scene processing that are particularly well recognized; is that correct?

Yes.

And those are the ones that I asked you about here this afternoon, true?

I believe so.

Did you feel that it was important to review all that material in preparation for your testimony on the witness stand here today?

No, I didn't.

Okay. And was that because for the $35,000, you didn't feel that this was--you thought this was just beyond the pale of what you were asked to do here?

Objection. Argumentative.

Overruled. You can answer the question.

Okay. Now, in the area of serology, conventional serology, do you consider yourself to be an expert?

In doing the test? No.

Do you consider yourself to be an expert in the area of the polymerase chain reaction test?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

In conducting the analysis, no.

And are you an expert in the area of RFLP, DNA analysis?

Again, in conducting the analysis, no.

Do you currently consider yourself to be an expert in the area of hair and trace analysis?

In--I don't believe the basic science of hair and trace analysis has progressed much since I stopped doing it. There are some new instrumentations available, but I still consider myself competent in that type of an examination if I had the equipment.

When's the last time--when did you stop doing hair and trace analysis?

When I was promoted to the director.

So that was before 1976?

Yes.

Okay. So if this jury were interested not in a critique of what happened at the crime scene, but in trying to figure out what the effect was of crime scene processing on the biological evidence in this case, would you agree, sir, that you would not be the appropriate person to be able to tell us that?

Your Honor, argumentative. And I'd like to approach.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Sir, do you consider yourself to be qualified to tell us the effect, if any, that the crime scene investigation had in terms of the actual outcome of the DNA testing in this case?

Yes. I do believe I could answer that question.

You consider yourself to be qualified?

To answer that question, yes.

And have you rendered any analysis in this case about the actual test results and what they either show or don't show?

No, I haven't.

So what you've basically testified to here are things that possibly could have happened during the crime scene processing; is that correct?

In a sense, yes, but not completely. I mean, I'm basing that statement--the statement that I said that I believe I can explain, at least have an understanding of why some of this evidence degraded doesn't require an expertise in knowing how to analyze or to conduct the amplification process of PCR or the analysis of reading the results. I don't believe it requires a knowledge of the finesse of doing the RFLP. It is simply a question of my experience with previous cases where samples were stored in plastic while moist and the results of what happened to that evidence.

You are qualified to tell us that wet blood degrades more quickly than dry blood; is that correct?

In certain conditions, yes.

In certain conditions.

Not in every condition, but in certain conditions.

Okay. But what I'm asking you, sir, is, if what we are concerned about are the actual test results themselves, this is something that you did not look into; is that correct?

And would you say that the person that would be most qualified to be able to tell us what effect, if any, the crime scene investigation had on the actual test results--I'm not talking about degradation, but the results--would be an individual who is an expert in conventional serology and/or DNA evidence?

Objection. Argumentative, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Well, I certainly think that somebody who has more knowledge about the techniques could add to what I'm saying, but I don't think the basic statement that I'm making is any different.

About degradation?

Yes.

But I'm not asking about that.

Well, what are you asking?

I'm asking about the actual type of results themselves.

When you say the "Type of results," you mean--you mean the specific answer?

Yes. Would you say that someone who is an expert in both p--in DNA testing and/or conventional serology would be in a better position to answer those kinds of questions?

About the results, yes.

All right.

The actual--interpreting the dot blots or interpreting the autorads or things such as that and trying to explain what type of degradation or what degradation would do to affect those, yes.

Well, for instance, let's say that we're interested in the issue of contamination. You're aware that some studies have been done on that issue, are you--aren't you?

Well, objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Well, have you read any studies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the issue of sample handling and how it can affect or whether it affects DNA typing results?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

I'm familiar with many of the programs that were presented at meetings that I attended at the FBI academy dealing with DNA handling and sampling, but I don't recall anything specifically about what you're asking. I mean, maybe you can amplify or clarify that.

Do you remember a study that had to do with using different kinds of devices like scissors, contaminated scissors to cut swatches and people coughing over the evidence and various other sample-handling issues?

No, I'm not familiar with that.

You're not familiar with that?

All right. Gentlemen, I'm going to have to ask you, first of all, Mr. Ragle, would you allow the lawyer to finish asking you the question, and, Mr. Goldberg, would you allow Mr. Ragle to finish his answer before you start to follow up, please.

Thank you, your Honor.

Take a breath. Proceed.

Now, let's get into the issue of collection of evidence. We've heard a lot of testimony in this case about gloves, wearing gloves at a crime scene. Are you generally familiar with that testimony?

Yes.

And do you believe that gloves always have to be worn at a crime scene whenever someone is actually at--on the crime scene?

It depends on the nature of the crime scene.

Did you see a picture of what has been testified to as being Mark Fuhrman's hand pointing at a glove?

I did see that picture, yes.

And Mark Fuhrman's hand did not have a glove on it; is that correct?

That's correct.

You don't see any problem with that, do you?

Okay. So the issue that has been made of people wearing gloves under those circumstances in this case is a false issue; isn't that true?

Objection. Misstates his testimony. Argumentative.

Sustained.

But at any rate, sir, if someone is actually standing at a crime scene and not wearing gloves, you do not have a problem with that, is that correct, even if they're pointing to a piece of evidence?

In--uh, yes. I don't have an objection to anybody who is walking into the crime scene and just there momentarily not wearing gloves.

Okay. In fact, did you participate yourself in a search of the Bronco on August the 26th?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Well, it goes to crime scene processing, your Honor.

Sustained.

Sir, do you always--well, have you always worn gloves when you're at a crime scene and your hands are very close to a piece of evidence? Say--say that there's a spot of blood over here on this book that I'm going to collect. If my hand is anywhere near that spot, would you say that that is a situation which gloves should be worn?

Objection. Irrelevant, beyond the scope. He didn't talk about gloves.

Overruled.

The use of gloves for something like that and other types of evidence has evolved over the last few years. And so just to pick up a book even 10 years ago would probably not require putting on gloves. If it's a book--now, if it's a book with biological material spattered on it, that changes it.

No. I'm not saying pick it up. I'm just saying if your hands are near it. I don't need to use gloves in that situation, do I?

Depends on the--on what's going on at that time, what else is going on in the room, wherever you're at. I mean, for instance, in this room, certainly not. In a crime scene today, it depends on the nature of the crime scene, whether protective clothing, not just gloves, but other types of protective clothing should be worn, and it's a decision that has to be made by the crime scene team.

And that mostly has to do with the fear of communicable diseases; is that correct?

As I said, this has evolved. That was the original concern that most investigators had, is other types of--you know, not the evidence, but them, they did not want to get contaminated.

If you were searching a piece of evidence, let's say the Bronco, and there was some blood on the console of that Bronco, would you put your hand in the immediate area of that blood, not touching it, but within a few inches of it without wearing gloves?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

May I be heard?

And you're also aware that a lot of testimony has been elicited about hair nets; is that correct?

Hair nets?

Hair nets?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Uh, I don't know specifically of hair nets.

Or head coverings, things--

Head coverings, I do believe--I don't know what--I don't know what you're referring to.

And is it your view, sir, that a crime scene investigator does not need to wear a hair net when they're at the crime scene?

Well, I actually recommend that at a scene where there is blood, that booties, hair net and paper--disposal paper suit be worn.

Well, if you were searching the Bronco, would you have worn a hair net?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Sir, with respect to the picture that we have marked as Defense last in order--

You didn't write a number on it.

Was that 16--I'm sorry.

1330. Your Honor, maybe with the Court's permission, I'll just write a number on the back of that. Oh, this is our copy. I'm sorry.

Sir, directing your attention to 1330 for identification, do you recognize this photograph?

Well, I can see everything except whose initials it is in the corner.

Okay. Were you present when photographs were taken of the Bronco on August the 26th?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

What day were you there? That was in March, wasn't it, of `95?

I--both.

Both. All right. March of `95.

That's all. No. He said he was there both.

I understand. But the only thing that was elicited on direct was March of `95.

Okay. And the reason that you indicate that people should wear lab coats or hair nets is to protect themselves; is that correct?

Objection. Misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

There are three reasons. One is to protect themselves. The second is to protect the crime scene from anything falling off of them onto the crime scene, and the third is to identify them as one of the--and--one of the only four people or five people, depending on the situation, that should be in the crime scene. So, in essence, it's a uniform that if somebody else is in the crime scene without all this stuff on, you know they shouldn't be there, and as a member, you can tell them to leave. There are three purposes.

Okay. At the Orange County crime lab when you left, were people routinely wearing--

At certain types of crime scenes.

But not all types of crime scenes; is that correct?

Not all types of crime scenes.

Usually when they would wear lab coats and hair nets and protective garments, it was when they were using chemicals for the purposes of processing the crime scene; is that correct?

When I left, we were not doing PCR.

No. I mean chemicals to enhance blood at the crime scene such as luminol and the like.

When I was there, we didn't use any luminol. But basically your answer is correct, that primarily people were trying to protect themselves at that time.

And what about booties? Is that standard at crime scenes?

It's becoming standard.

Is it standard at crime scenes?

I think it is now.

Are people commonly wearing booties at crime scenes at the Orange County Sheriff's Department?

I can't answer that question.

Were they when you left?

No.

And you haven't been to any crime scenes that were in progress being investigated between the time that you left and today's date?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled. A slightly different question.

Have I-- I have not been to any crime scenes. That's correct.

Now, do you agree that it's okay to use clean cotton swatches for the purposes of collecting biological evidence?

Yes.

And did you do anything to try to determine whether or not the substrate at the Bundy crime scene, particularly the Mexican paving tiles, were appropriate for using a chisel or some type of instrument to chip the blood off?

The--did I do anything? No.

And if the blood is partially absorbed into a porous surface, if you want to remove as much of the blood as you can on relatively small dots, is the cloth swatch technique an appropriate technique?

I believe before, I said that it was, but I also qualified it by saying that, if possible, some of the samples--there should be at least an attempt to remove some of the sample without wetting it. If that is not possible, then some moist removal is permissible.

And is it correct that you don't know whether or not it was possible to use another technique here?

That's true.

But just using common sense, is a dot of blood on concrete or a porous surface generally going to be difficult to scrape up?

Difficult, but not impossible, because I have done it at crime scenes.

But generally, it would be difficult?

It takes time and more work. The swatch is quicker.

Is it okay to use distilled water for the purposes of moistening the swatches?

It's required.

Okay. And is it okay to use clean instruments as opposed to sterile instruments?

Sterile is not necessary.

Now, with respect to collecting samples and air-drying them at the scene, do you believe that the forensic science literature supports the view that you should always air-dry at the scene or sometimes air-dry at the scene?

You have--you have to--to qualify that answer by of course saying what the conditions are at the scene. I mean, if the conditions are such that air drying immediately could contaminate something because of air movement or something such as that. Our--when I say our, the Orange County is equipped with a device that's sort of a protective device that can be used to put not swatches, but swabs, the cotton swabs in it, and air moves gently through it. So there's no absolute answer to that if there are some--some extraneous conditions. But my belief is that in this situation, that they should have been--they should have been dried.

Now, sir, you said that one of the books that you consider in part was the forensic science and introduction to criminalistics; is that correct?

Is that Dr. Lee's book?

Yes. And de Forest. Sir, do you agree with the view that sometimes it may be better to air-dry blood samples before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory?

Counsel, you want to show that to Mr. Blasier first?

I have--I'm just asking him a question.

All right.

Sir, do you agree that--

Let me read it first.

Your Honor, I have no objection as long as the whole paragraph's read.

Well, I was only intending on reading part of it. If counsel wants the rest, he can read it later.

Proceed.

Well, I object to him reading part of it.

Counsel, you can do that on redirect if you like. Proceed.

Sir, do you agree with the view that--

"Sometimes it may be better to air-dry blood samples before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory. The decision about how best to collect blood evidence should be made by crime scene searchers in consultation with laboratory analysts. Laboratory analysts are in the best position to know what they are or not equipped to do and what kinds of samples they are set up to handle." Sir, do you agree with that?

Yes. You know, taken out of context.

Well, would you like to see the context and perhaps--

Yes.

--read more of it?

Where were you?

245, the paragraph that starts with the word "Sometimes."

Well, may I read the few lines just before that?

Sure. If you'd like.

It says, "Garments bearing wet or moist bloodstains must never be sealed in air-tight containers such as plastic bags." Well, a swatch is cloth and that's synonymous with a garment--

Right.

--and it never has been bolded here.

Yes. But they're talking about garments in the first paragraph, right, the paragraph that you read, and they're talking about bloodstains in the paragraph that I read from; isn't that correct?

They are talking about garments, but that's--we're talking about cloth, and a garment and a piece of cloth to me is synonymous. A piece of swatch is a little tiny piece of a garment in effect. And then to go on further, if you have some untrained crime scene investigators at a crime scene and they have a blood sample and they don't know what to do with it, it is very likely that why this author or these authors are saying this is that if the blood is moist like a--

Your Honor, there's no question pending at this point.

Well, counsel, you--he asked if he could read the rest of the paragraph. He's done that. Ask your next question.

Sir, does the paragraph starting with the word "Sometimes" simply provide in the first line that, "Sometimes it may be better to air-dry samples, blood samples, before collecting them or packaging them for transportation to the laboratory"? Did I read that correctly?

You read that correctly.

And did you know, sir--did you hear any testimony about how long LAPD has used the practice of using plastic baggies for the purposes of transporting the bags to the crime lab?

If I did, I don't remember how long.

Okay. Well, if they've been using it for more than 17 years, would you say that they have a considerable amount of experience in this technique?

They've done it a lot of times.

And doesn't it appear to you that what Dr. de Forest, Gaennslen and Lee are particularly concerned about here is that the decision about how to collect evidence from a crime scene should be made in consultation with a laboratory analyst?

Simple answer to that is yes, but I do need to qualify that.

And what is your qualification?

What I tried to say a moment ago. If the people that are collecting the blood are untrained--and this is something that we fundamentally teach all the crime scene investigators that are nonscientists in terms of their background--if they have an issue about a question, you call your crime laboratory serologist and you ask them what to do.

And this is talking about calling to find out what to do, because if you got wet blood at a crime scene, it's still wet whether--I don't mean--I don't think this means, you wetted it, you made it wet. It was dry to begin with, you made it wet, you've made it wet again, that you don't dry it right away. They're talking about whole blood, wet blood. Whole blood contains all kinds of information that dry blood doesn't. Blood cells, for example. Blood cells are still intact in wet blood and it may be very advantageous to bring that blood into the crime laboratory immediately. And in those circumstances, would an analyst in the laboratory say, "Well, put it in the back of your truck for eight hours and bring it in then"?

Sir, would you agree that with respect to whole blood at a crime--first of all, do they say anything about whole blood anywhere in the paragraph that I read from or the paragraph above it that you read from?

It says, "Sometimes it's better to air-dry blood samples." It doesn't say--it just implies that they're wet samples.

Well, where does it say "Whole blood"?

It just says "Dry blood samples." They're talking about wet garments. They're talking about--they're not talking about swatches or--I don't see the word "Swatch" or I don't see "Swab" here. I just see "Wet blood on garments," and then they're talking about better to air-dry it, sometimes it's better to air-dry it, sometimes it isn't.

Your Honor, perhaps I can introduce this page into evidence so the jurors can look at it themselves, but may I make a Xerox copy later on? It's page 245.

Not at this point. That's still a hearsay source. Proceed.

Well, sir, you did say that you relied on this book in part in forming opinions about crime scene processing; is that correct, sir?

Yes.

All right. Now, did you read any materials that were written by Dr. Henry Lee on the issue of collecting evidence for DNA typing?

No, I haven't.

You didn't read a document entitled "Guidelines for the collection and preservation of DNA evidence"? You've never seen this before by the FBI?

Oh, I didn't realize--I believe I read that. I didn't realize that Dr. Lee was the author of that.

Okay.

I'd have to look at that though to verify that I read that.

Okay. I'll let you take a look at it.

May I approach the witness, your Honor?

Does this refresh your recollection as to whether you read this?

I can't tell just by looking at that. I'd have to--

Okay.

Was there a cover with a publication date on this?

Sir, I'm sorry. Did you say that you recognized this or not?

I don't believe I have read this, but what I asked you, was there a publication date? I don't see it. I don't believe I have read that.

Sir, would you agree that with respect to whole blood samples at a crime scene, that a clean cotton cloth gauze or cotton swab could be used to soak up the liquid if other equipment is not available; and if this method is used and a significant delay will occur in getting the specimens to the laboratory, the samples should be air-dried prior to submitting to the laboratory?

Yes, I would agree with that.

Are you aware of any research in the scientific literature as to what constitutes a significant delay with respect to blood samples?

Any literature?

Yes.

No.

Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain?

You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken.

Sir, do you agree with the statement that once an adequate series of photographs has been taken, some or all, if necessary, of the sample can then be removed from the scene?

Again, that's not quite totally clear, but yes. If--if--if an adequate sample--for instance, if it's a big pool of blood, you would probably pipette some of it up. If it's an individual drop, all of it should be kept--it should be photographed first and then it should be taken from the scene.

So you're saying that the sentence that I just stated to you is not really clear as to what exactly it means?

It's clear, but it's not complete.

All right. Well, sir, isn't that what you wrote in the chapter that was in the book that you participated in entitled principles of investigation?

Maybe I can approach.

You want to show that to Mr. Blasier first? Mr. Goldman, would you show that to Mr. Blasier, please.

Proceed.

Now that I see this, I think this is great. No. This is correct. This is describing a particular situation and it's complete for that particular situation.

And what is the situation that it is describing?

Where there is a sample of blood such as a blood drop, and I'm saying, "Once an adequate series of photographs have been taken, some," and then parenthetically, "Or all if necessary," meaning, if it's a small sample, "Of the sample can then be removed from the scene or"-- let's see what else it says. Want me to read the rest of this?

Well, does the rest of it have to do with how much of the bloodstain you need to collect? Is there anything else in there as to that?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Then read it.

"How the investigator choose to accomplish this removal will depend on how much material is present in the sample, how old the sample is, if known, where the sample is located and what it has been exposed to so far if known."

Okay. So would you agree that with respect to a single dot of blood or drop of blood, there is no rule as to exactly how much you need to remove?

Objection. Misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

Would I agree that there is no exact rule?

You don't necessarily have to remove the whole thing; is that correct?

For a single dot?

Yes.

I think you do have to remove all of it until you are satisfied you've got as much as you can get.

But that's not what you said in your book, is it?

Well, there's no reference to a tiny little dot. This could be a huge bunch of blood is what I'm talking about. I mean, there's no reference to the size. I believe it's clear, as I said before, and knowing that I wrote it, that it is clear what is said there. But what I said was that it is incomplete the way you read it because I don't know what size bloodstain you're talking about.

But the size bloodstain that is referenced in your book or in your chapter rather is a drop of blood. Isn't that what you're talking about?

Again, I'd have to look at it.

Well, when you just looked at it?

I didn't see anything about a drop. I just said--I believe it said a blood--I don't know what it said anymore. I don't know whether it said a bloodstain or a blood sample.

Okay. I think it's in the record. So let's go on.

But the point is--

There's no question pending, your Honor.

Proceed.

Your Honor, I think he was trying to explain his answer.

No. The question was, did he recollect that, was that in his writing. Let's proceed.

Now, sir, would you agree that with respect to crime scene documentation, that the purposes of good crime scene documentation is simply to be able to place the items of evidence in effect back in the crime scene to know exactly where they came from?

That's certainly one of the reasons.

Would you say that that's really the key goal?

No. It's one of the key goals.

All right. Well, what other goal is there?

To--to begin the chain of possession, to begin the history of that sample, establishing that this is the same sample that was at the crime scene and I'm holding it up here in my hands right now in a court of law.

Now, is there any accepted practice throughout the country that in order to do that, videotaping the crime scene is necessary?

No.

In fact, would you say that as of today, videotape is not a standard practice at crime scenes?

It--it is regional, departmental choice. It's not--it's not a requirement.

Some crime labs are using it in some jurisdictions and some aren't; is that correct?

Some--you know, I don't even know if it's crime labs. I think it's the police departments that are using it.

Okay. And there is no statement in a forensic science literature anywhere that you absolutely must, to be competent, use videotape at a crime scene; is that correct?

That's correct. I'm not aware of that anyway. Put it that way.

Now, sir, with respect to the issue of trace evidence, do you--are you familiar with Locard's exchange principle?

Yes.

And is that that when there is contact between two or more surfaces, there will be a mutual exchange of matter across that contact boundary and that in some instances, transfer of materials can result without contact; however, that's rare? Do you agree that that is an appropriate statement of the principle?

The--I agree with everything but one word that you said.

Which would be what?

That you said "There will be transfer." I think there may be transfer.

Okay. Or there may be transfer that's beyond our level of detectability. That's also a possibility; is that true?

That's a possibility.

But, sir, would you say with respect to the blanket, the most likely transfer would occur if the blanket were on top of Nicole brown, between the blanket and Nicole brown?

I don't know that that's an intelligible question. What happened between the blanket and Nicole brown, between means--you mean from one direction to the other?

Well, there would be an exchange.

All right.

If there was going to be an exchange between the blanket and anything at the crime scene, it would be most likely to be Nicole Brown's since it came in direct contact with her; is that true?

I--I can't answer that question. I think for that limited part of the scenario, where the blanket is now on top of her, yes. But I don't know the history of what the people--what the people did with this blanket when they brought it out, whether they--whether they opened it up like a--like you would do a sheet or your own blanket when you're putting it on the bed. I mean, I don't know that. And so it would depend on the care they used. Assuming there's something on the blanket in the first place, that if they open it up and fluffed it around or straightened it out, somebody--it's got to be, I would imagine at least two people or four to get--to do this. So they--I can't answer the second part of your question.

Well, would you say, based on the extent of your knowledge, that the most likely transfer would probably be between Nicole Brown and the blanket?

Once it's in contact with her, yes.

Okay. And were you aware that there were no hair and trace items or are you aware of whether there were any hair and trace items found on Nicole Brown of some probative value in this case?

I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.

Now, you said that there is a possibility that bringing the glove into the crime scene could result in some kind of an exchange; is that correct?

I didn't say that in a sense--I possibly said "Could." What I said, it's a bad practice and that it opened up the possibility of something bad happening.

If the glove was never taken out of the bag, would you say that that possibility is so remote that it's not even worth discussing?

It doesn't--it doesn't change my opinion about a bad practice. But if the bag is open and people are looking in it or putting their hand in it, that changes it. If the bag is simply opened, the chances of something jumping into that is obviously remote.

From the crime scene?

From anything.

And the chances of something jumping out of the bag into the crime scene again would be very remote, wouldn't it?

Probably more remote.

Now, sir, do you believe that it is a good forensic practice to wait until daylight to begin a crime scene investigation?

Not to begin it. But it's certainly good practice to continue it into the daytime or to return--you know, keep the crime scene protected and return to the daytime.

Okay. The Barry Fisher book is one of the books that you considered; is that correct?

In parts of it, yes, but I respect Barry Fisher.

May I approach the witness for a moment?

Yeah. You want to show Mr. Blasier first what source you have there?

Yes.

May I approach?

You may.

Sir, is it--did Mr. Fisher in his book say that, "Unless it is unavoidably necessary," and in bolden, "Do not examine a crime scene outdoors until good daylight prevails"? Is that what he said?

That's what he says, right.

So you disagree with Barry Fisher?

No.

Now, sir, with respect to a summonsing the Coroner, do you believe that when the Coroner is summonsed is an issue that is subject to local custom; in other words, it differs from one place to another?

I suppose that's obvious. Customs vary.

Do you agree with the proposition that whether the medical examiner or Coroner should be contacted as soon as the investigation begins as a matter of local custom, that many agencies wait first for the investigating officers to arrive and begin their investigation prior to notification of the Coroner's office? Do you agree with that?

Do I agree that that's a practice?

Yes.

It is a practice, yes.

And do you agree that--or is that an acceptable forensic practice, if you know, insofar as Barry Fisher is concerned?

Here in L.A. County?

Yes.

That's a difficult question to answer. If that's their practice here in L.A. County, then that's what they do, and I agree with him saying that that's what they do here in L.A. County. I don't agree with the concept.

Well, do you agree with the concept that one should let a detailed examination of the body wait until the basic examination of the scene has been completed? Do you agree with that?

Yes.

And so, obviously if you have to wait until the crime scene has been completed, then the Coroner is simply going to have to stand around waiting for an extended period; is that correct?

Not necessarily. If they make their preliminary examination, which they should do as soon as possible, and then have other things they can do rather than wait for five or six or 10 hours, however long it takes, and then return and do their detail, as that refers to, detailed investigation.

Well, as soon as they enter the crime scene, didn't you say there was the possibility of items being disturbed?

That's true. But as--as the first officer and the first investigator and the medical examiner, they have to enter the crime scene, but they have to be trained how to enter the crime scene to do the least possible damage.

But do you believe there are many people within the forensic community that believe that the Coroner should be kept out of the crime scene until the scene is processed?

Do I believe that? Yes, I do.

Okay. And if that is the case, would it be reasonable to call the Coroner later on in order not to have them waiting for an extended period?

I don't agree with the term "Reasonable," but I understand the practice.

Okay. Now, do you agree that the first officer at the crime scene after having established that the--that a death has occurred and making a cursory inspection, should notify his superiors and the appropriate people that a homicide has occurred?

Yes.

Sir, do you agree that it is advised that the telephone be used rather than police radio to accomplish this, as it is not uncommon for the press and other news sources to monitor police radio frequencies? Do you agree with that?

You said "The telephone." I agree "A telephone."

Well, you want to take a look at what Mr. Fisher has to say on this?

No. I agree with that. You said "The telephone," which is vague to me.

May I approach the witness?

Let's not spend a lot of time on that.

Okay. And did you hear the testimony in this case as to why the officer discovering the body decided to wait--excuse me--decided to use the telephone as to--as opposed to the radio?

I don't remember specifically that--that answer, but, you know, that's not the point that I'm trying to make.

And, sir, is it your understanding with respect to the telephone in this particular case, that outgoing calls would destroy any information contained within that telephone as to the most recent call or incoming calls?

The specifics of that phone I don't know either.

Okay. Now, with respect to the eyeglass envelope and the other items that were in the threshold area between the walkway and what we've referred to as the caged-off area--you know what I'm talking about?

I think so.

With respect to the eyeglass envelope, would one concern be, if it were in fact not moved prior to when the bodies were taken out of the crime scene, that any blood pattern on the eyeglass envelope could have been changed?

I would expect it to be changed if they moved the body out while it's still there.

And, therefore, any reconstruction that could be done on the basis of the envelope itself would probably not be very--would be less meaningful; is that correct?

It would require some more interpretation.

Okay. And would you also say that if there were impression evidence on that envelope and that was the only place at the crime scene that you had impression evidence, that that impression evidence might be less probative as a result of the activities that occurred?

Less probative?

Yes.

Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion.

Rephrase the question.

Would it be your estimation that that impression evidence, if that were the only impression evidence that you had, would be less usable for forensic purposes for subsequent analysis?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

It would raise questions about the marks. I mean, I'm assuming that there's photographs before--I've seen photographs before the--while--while the remains of the victims were still there.

Okay.

And any change would--if there was any change due to moving the bodies, could be accounted for.

All right. Mr. Goldman, I need to take a--I've had a request here for a brief comfort break. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a 10-minute comfort break. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. Come back in 10 minutes.