Cross-examination of Larry Ragle (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Larry Ragle (part 3) — Monday, August 21, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\21\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-LARRY-RAG.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 139 of 167

◀ Jury returning and scheduling Redirect examination of Larry Ragle (part 1) ▶

Witness: Larry Ragle
Examiner: Hank Goldberg
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, August 21, 1995 • Utterances: 56

Prosecutor Hank Goldberg cross-examines defense criminalist Larry Ragle, systematically attacking his credibility by highlighting that he hadn't spoken to the LAPD criminalists he criticized, that his concerns about the blood vial were speculative with no supporting evidence, and that he hadn't worked an actual crime scene in 19 years. Goldberg also challenged Ragle's standing to disagree with more credentialed experts like Henry Lee and Robert Gaensslen.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by our jury panel. Mr. Larry Ragle is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.

# 2 MR. GOLDBERG:

Mr. Ragle, with respect to the interior of the condominium at Bundy, were you aware of the testimony that inside the condominium there was no ransacking, there were no footprints that were found, shoeprints, no blood, no evidence of any struggle, no evidence of a break-in, and that there were items that were checked with the phenolphthalein test and no blood was discovered? Were you aware of all those things?

# 3 MR. RAGLE:

I was aware of everything except the last thing you mentioned.

# 4 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, did you talk to Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola in this case before getting up to the stand to criticize the crime scene investigation?

# 5 MR. RAGLE:

Did I talk to them?

# 6 MR. GOLDBERG:

Yes.

# 7 MR. RAGLE:

No, I didn't.

# 8 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, you also testified, sir, that there was a possibility that the blood vial placed in an evidence envelope in a trash bag could have broken; is that correct?

# 9 MR. RAGLE:

It is in danger, yes.

# 10 MR. GOLDBERG:

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the blood vial actually did break?

KEY QUOTE

# 11 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 12 MR. GOLDBERG:

Is there any evidence that it cracked?

# 13 MR. RAGLE:

Not that I am aware of.

# 14 MR. GOLDBERG:

So wouldn't you agree that the whole issue is completely irrelevant to this case?

# 15 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, argumentative.

# 16 THE COURT:

That is a legal conclusion, counsel.

# 17 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, are you aware, sir, that with respect to the items at the Bundy location there were photographs that were taken before and after photographs, if you will, documenting where the objects were originally and then where they were moved to; is that correct?

# 18 MR. RAGLE:

I have seen two sets of photographs, yes.

# 19 MR. GOLDBERG:

And in fact the only reason that you know that objects at the Bundy location were in fact moved is because of the before and after photographs; is that true?

# 20 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 21 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, Mr. Ragle, do you agree that there are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing?

# 22 MR. RAGLE:

I don't agree with that, no.

# 23 MR. GOLDBERG:

You don't? So if Professor de Forest, Lee and Gaensslen said that, that there are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing, you would disagree with them; is that correct?

# 24 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 25 MR. GOLDBERG:

And don't you think that they all have a little bit more experience as criminalists than you do?

# 26 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, argumentative.

# 27 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

Do you think that Dr. Henry Lee has more experience as a criminalist than yourself?

# 29 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, argumentative; no foundation.

# 30 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 31 MR. RAGLE:

I--I don't think so. I mean, I don't really know. I don't know how--you know, what he does. He certainly has a lot of experience, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says.

KEY QUOTE

# 32 MR. GOLDBERG:

And sir, is your highest degree in criminalistics a bachelor's degree?

# 33 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 34 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, do you think that Dr. de Forest has more experience in crime scene investigation than yourself?

# 35 MR. RAGLE:

I have no idea what his experience is. He is, I believe, a--

# 36 MR. GOLDBERG:

You have never heard of him?

# 37 MR. RAGLE:

Oh, I know him. He went to the same university. I just don't know what his experience is.

# 38 MR. GOLDBERG:

And sir, have you ever written a book that is a leading textbook in the area of forensic science?

# 39 MR. RAGLE:

No, I haven't.

# 40 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And the chapter that you wrote is not contained in a book that is considered to be a leading textbook; is that correct?

# 41 MR. RAGLE:

I don't consider it a leading textbook.

# 42 MR. GOLDBERG:

In fact, to your knowledge is that book not even contained in the library at the Orange County Sheriff's Department criminalistics laboratory library?

# 43 MR. RAGLE:

I can't find it.

# 44 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, umm--

# 45 MR. RAGLE:

It was.

# 46 MR. GOLDBERG:

They haven't replaced it?

# 47 MR. RAGLE:

It is out of print.

# 48 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, sir, do you also agree, with respect to the issue of crime scene processing, that: "Of course perfection in this or any other human endeavor is never achieved, it is probable that no crime scene has ever been processed in such a way that hindsight would not allow someone else to criticize the work at a hear date"? Do you agree with that?

# 49 MR. RAGLE:

I'm sure there is some truth to that.

# 50 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And that is what you are doing here; is that correct?

# 51 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, vague as to--

# 53 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 54 MR. GOLDBERG:

And sir, is it a correct statement of the record and your testimony in this case that it has been 19 years since you've actually been in the field as a criminalist and processed a crime scene?

KEY QUOTE

# 55 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 56 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Hank Goldberg

And sir, is it a correct statement of the record and your testimony in this case that it has been 19 years since you've actually been in the field as a criminalist and processed a crime scene?

The closing blow of the cross — Ragle's entire testimony critiquing LAPD's crime scene work came from someone who hadn't done the job himself in nearly two decades.

Larry Ragle

I--I don't think so. I mean, I don't really know. I don't know how--you know, what he does. He certainly has a lot of experience, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says.

Ragle hedging on whether Henry Lee has more experience than him — an awkward moment that undermined his authority as a critic of LAPD procedures.

Larry Ragle

I can't find it.

Ragle admitting the book containing his chapter isn't even in his own department's library — a deflating moment for his credentials.

Hank Goldberg

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the blood vial actually did break?

Goldberg efficiently dismantling the defense's blood-transfer theory by getting Ragle to concede there's no evidence the vial cracked or broke.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Before and after photographs of objects at the Bundy location documenting movement of evidence

discussed — Ragle concedes these photos are the only basis for knowing objects were moved

Informal

Blood reference vial placed in evidence envelope in a trash bag

challenged — Goldberg gets Ragle to admit no evidence it actually broke or cracked

Notable Exchanges (3)

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Goldberg asks whether Ragle spoke to Fung or Mazzola before testifying to criticize their work. Ragle confirms he did not.

revealing

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Goldberg reads aloud a quote — attributed implicitly to defense experts Lee, de Forest, and Gaensslen — that 'there are no hard and fast rules for successful crime scene processing,' and Ragle says he disagrees, setting up the awkward position of contradicting the very experts he was called to support.

strategic

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Exchange about Ragle's book chapter — the book is out of print, not in his own department's library, and not considered a leading textbook even by Ragle himself.

deflating

Light Moments (1)

Larry Ragle

Ragle notes he knows de Forest because 'He went to the same university' — a casual aside mid-credential-attack that momentarily humanized the exchange.

Credibility Attacks (4)

⚔ Larry Ragle

lack of preparation / bias

Ragle admitted he never spoke to Fung or Mazzola before taking the stand to criticize their work.

⚔ Larry Ragle

lack of qualifications relative to peers

Goldberg established Ragle's highest degree is a bachelor's, he hasn't written a leading textbook, and the book containing his chapter isn't even in his own lab's library.

⚔ Larry Ragle

stale field experience

Ragle confirmed he had not actually processed a crime scene in 19 years — the final and most damaging point of the cross.

⚔ Larry Ragle

speculation without evidence

Ragle conceded there is no evidence the blood vial broke or cracked, undermining the theoretical contamination argument.

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 7970 • 56 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103