Mr. Ragle, you indicated that you first became involved approximately June 26th of last year?
And have you been regularly involved in the case on a semi-continuous basis since that time?
Has that involved numerous meetings and sessions where we have discussed crime scene processing issues?
And have you watched much of the testimony in this case on television about crime scene processing from the detectives, as well as the forensic people as well as the Coroner?
My regular billing rate would be $200.00. That is not what I've been charging in this case.
For attending the meetings, half of that, a hundred dollars an hour. For monitoring testimony on TV, $50.00 an hour.
And is the amount that you have been paid so far, does that cover everything you have done or do you have a certain amount that you will be billing after this?
Last billing submitted included June and I haven't been paid for that, or possibly--June. I didn't do anything in July, and now this month.
Now, Mr. Ragle, given your training and experience in the area of crime scene processing, do you have an understanding of the minimum standard of practice which should be used to process crime scenes?
Now, did I ask you to try and break down the processing of a crime scene into some categories for me?
All right. We are over at the side bar and I have been shown two boards, one of which is entitled "Crime scene processing" and the other which is "Chronology."
Your Honor, I don't have an objection necessarily to the top one. I believe that we had a three-day rule on showing charts and diagrams and I didn't receive this until this morning, so it should be excluded on that basis. The problem with the chronology is--and I haven't checked out every single time because I just didn't have time because I only saw it this morning--some of them are off. For example, Dennis Fung and Mazzola received a call at 5:26, so that is only--that is four minutes off, but it is off. They arrived at Bundy--excuse me--at Rockingham at 7:10. They left Rockingham at ten o'clock, so they probably arrived at Bundy at about 10:10 or 10:15 and I just haven't checked the rest of the--the times, but the point is, is that some of them are incorrect and shouldn't be used.
They are all intended to be approximate times, Judge. Whether it is a minute or two off is not significant. The purpose of this chart is just to show when criminalists were called, when the bodies were found, just the general delay that occurred. I mean, I will state that they are approximate times.
Mr. Blasier, I'm going to direct you not to use this until Mr. Goldberg has had the opportunity to check the times. I take it this is in your computer, though?
And the categories on the chart, "Recognition of evidence," "Protection of evidence," "Documentation," "Collection" and "Preservation," those are the categories that you broke down the various steps of crime scene processing into?
Could you tell us briefly what--we want to go through each of those categories--what you mean by the term "Recognition of evidence"?
The recognition of evidence in this context means that the individual, either the police officer or the field evidence technician or the criminalist, has either an innate ability, an intuition or special training in what types of evidence would be important at a particular crime scene. Since every crime scene the evidence varies. They have to be aware of the consequences and the significance of particular types of evidence and then set forth some method of capturing that.
The protection of evidence in relation to the first category, the recognition, both of those are sort of ongoing processes throughout any crime scene investigation. The protection specifically is taking some measure that will assure that that evidence isn't changed, once the investigative team arrives--arrives at the scene, so that the concept here is that if they could, they would freeze the entire evidence and they would pick it up and take it to some safe haven, so they set up barriers, they maintain a log of the people who come in and out of the crime scene, and most importantly, they minimize the type and the number of people that come in and out of the crime scene.
That is an all--sort of an all-encompassing term that would include the specifics of the location of each item that is believed to be evidence at the time, which appears to be relevant to the investigation at the time. And it includes photography, at least three different types of photographs, general photographs of the scene where this object might be seen off in the distance, a close-up photograph of it, what I would call an orientation photograph, and then a very close-up photograph where there is some documentation as to the size and the nature of that particular item, what it might be. Then those items that are considered relevant are measured very precisely relative to some fixed objects at the crime scene, so that if it is necessary that whole crime scene could be reconstructed and people who weren't at the crime scene to begin with could--could recognize and understand where each item of evidence was. And then finally the evidence is documented, carries on into some of these other--other phases, which is the collection of the evidence.
The collection--the physical--physical picking up of the object in such a way that its value as evidence is maintained. And it may be packaged, it may be something that has to be carried in--to maintain its integrity, its originality. It might have to be packaged and something just carried in your hand like a pizza box or some type of open container like that. A loaded weapon is an example.
And "Preservation of the crime scene," what does that refer to, or "Preservation of the evidence"?
The preservation of the evidence again is an ongoing subject. It pertains to maintaining that evidence in as close to its original condition as possible and that begins obviously with the protection of the evidence, so nothing happens to it, and then ultimately in the way it is packaged, so it is packaged in something that accommodates the object, that doesn't add to any--any destruction of the evidence, that doesn't change the nature of the evidence. And then the preservation goes on until then, how that evidence is stored. Some objects have to be stored frozen, some refrigerated, some dry.
Now, when you talk about protection of the evidence and keeping it in its original condition, does that include also any trace evidence that might be on pieces of evidence in terms of maintaining that it is in the same place when it was found as when it is collected?
The main reason is that if evidence is in any way degraded or altered, its potential, what I call individuality, its uniqueness can change, can be lost. Obviously if evidence is--is not--you go back to step 1 in this outline. If evidence is not recognized or--or properly documented or collected, it can leave a lot of unanswered questions. Many crime scenes contain a lot of information that could answer questions, and so if these things are not done, evidence of a person's involvement might be overlooked or evidence of a person's non-involvement might be overlooked.
You used an analogy with me when we were discussing this of a dictionary. Could you explain that to the jurors, please.
In sort of a simplistic statement that I said is that every crime scene is like a book or a dictionary. I mean, if you know where to open up the pages and look up the information, you can answer many questions, and most crime scenes, not all, but most crime scenes are loaded with information, if the crime scene team is trained and interested in finding this information.
Well, you talked about evidence losing its individuality. What did you mean by that?
A good example of that would be like if the fingerprint was discovered at a crime scene that had all the detail that could be established to show ownership of that fingerprint and it is not collected possibly or ignored until something--somebody smudges it and now all you can say is it is a fingerprint and it might have fingerprint characteristics, but the fine detail is now missing, and the fine detail is what is necessary for identification.
Now, given the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case--and by "Crime scenes" I'm talking about Rockingham and Bundy--fell above or below minimum standards of practice?
Are you familiar with the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department?
And have you followed all the testimony about the manner in which the crime scenes were processed in this case?
And you are familiar with their crime scene truck and the equipment that they have testified to that they have available to them?
Now, do you have an opinion--with that understanding in mind, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case fell above or below a minimum standard of practice?
The outcome of the evidence, the things that occurred to the evidence that caused it to lose some of its individuality, some of the items that were contaminated at the evidence (Sic) in the sense, for instance, there was something placed over a body at that evidence--at that crime scene, which was a mistake in the sense of the choice of whatever it was, not a mistake necessarily to cover a body if it is in public view, and there is some question of--of just humanistic aspect of covering up the remains of somebody.
Well, let's talk about that specifically. You are familiar with the testimony that a blanket was removed from inside Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium and was placed over her body?
And when you indicate that that was a mistake, could you tell us which aspect of that is a mistake?
Well, there are really two aspects. The first is the fact that they picked something from the crime scene.
Your Honor, again this is not relevant pursuant to our previous argument this morning.
They selected something from the crime scene and used that and that leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to that--the condition of whatever it was they picked, I believe a blanket. But the biggest problem, from my perspective, is that they then did not collect that blanket and retain it for whatever evidential value it might have had because it was in contact with one of the bodies. There are--there are all kinds of possibilities of transfers from--if not from the blanket to the body, from the body to the blanket, and that would have been helpful and is just something that should have been done.
Now, you indicated that there may be humanistic reasons to cover a body at a crime scene. Are there any legitimate investigative or forensic reasons for covering a body at a crime scene?
Now, suppose hypothetically that the blanket that was used had recently been laundered. Does that make any difference in your view?
Well, you still don't--unless you have the blanket to look at, you still don't know what might have been on it or not on it, and more importantly, you don't know what was transferred to it after it was used.
Now, are you familiar with the testimony that there were some blood droplets on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?
Well, that obviously is very important evidence, and it was not collected at the crime scene and there was some explanation as to why it was not collected at the crime scene which I find unacceptable.
Well, is your opinion based on your understanding of what the reason was that that was not collected?
That it was not the job of the criminalist, it was the job of the Coroners to collect that sample.
Well, until the Coroner's experts are at the scene, by putting the body in a body bag, all that evidence is destroyed or at least contaminated.
Is it important in your view that the Coroner's office, the Scientific Investigation Division people and the detectives, work closely together?
Now, let me ask you some questions about timing of when various people were called to this crime scene occurred. Are you familiar with the time frame in which the criminalists were called, the Coroners were called?
And what is your understanding as to when criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that scene, approximately?
Is there any--in your opinion any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to be served by not calling criminalists for approximately ten hours to the primary crime scene?
Let me back up one question. Did you--what is your understanding of when the criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that?
Now, in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason or purpose to be served by not having the criminalist at the primary crime scene for ten hours?
What is your understanding as to when the criminalists began processing Rockingham?
Now, we've had testimony that the detectives, Lange, Vannatter, Phillips and Fuhrman, left the Bundy crime scene at approximately five o'clock in the morning to make a death notification to Mr. Simpson. In your opinion is that an appropriate procedure to take?
In your view is there any legitimate investigative or forensic purpose for the investigative detectives to leave the crime scene for a period of time to make a death notification?
Well, are you--did you watch the testimony of the detectives in this case as to when they went to Rockingham and for what purpose?
Do you have an opinion on whether it is an appropriate procedure to use in investigating a crime scene to have all the detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to what might be a secondary scene?
Mr. Ragle, do you have any experience on the procedures that are used to make death notifications in homicide cases?
As the director and in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Orange County Coroner's division, I am aware of how notifications are made.
And do you have an opinion as to the appropriateness of having four detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to a secondary scene to make a death notification?
In your opinion what is the importance of having criminalists respond to a crime scene as soon as possible?
The reason that you would want a criminalist to come to a crime scene as soon as possible is the nature of some evidence is in question, is perishable, and you never know what the weather conditions may be, so the sooner they arrive, the less chance of any degradation or loss of evidence.
Biological materials, for example, blood in a hostile environment, such as a crime scene, the ground is not in its normal environment, go bad.
What is the importance of having the Coroner called to a crime scene as soon as possible?
My experience with having the Coroner come to the crime scene as soon as possible is that they are trained in establishing or estimating the time of death.
Is it important that all of those agencies begin working together at the very earliest moment?
Are you aware of any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to not begin processing the Bundy crime scene until ten hours after the bodies were discovered, approximately?
Do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of only--with the complicated crime scenes present in this case--of only having one type of criminalists working all crime scenes?
The appropriate procedure would have been to--would be to call at least a second team of criminalists.
Are you familiar with the equipment that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung had available to them in their crime scene truck for examining for latent shoeprints--shoeprints evidence at the crime scene?
Are you aware of whether or not there was ever any search done in the dirt area of the Bundy crime scene for latent shoeprints?
And do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department in their crime scene trucks has equipment to conduct such an analysis?
Well, actually there isn't any special equipment needed to look for shoe impressions in soil, other than a flashlight at night.
Is there--in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason not to do that at a crime scene such as Bundy?
Mr. Ragle, what techniques are available to look for shoeprints in dirt at night?
Oblique lighting is light at an angle and light at a sharp angle, so any indentations, and whatever it is, whether it is soil or indented writing or anything like that on a piece of paper, the shadowing accentuates fine detail so it allows a person to see something that could be very subtle or something quite obvious.
Your Honor, I have two photographs that I think are actually entered in one form. Those are just blow-ups that I would like to have marked.
Incidentally, Mr. Ragle, are there any advantages to looking for shoeprints at night versus in the day?
The oblique light, which would be holding a flashlight at a very sharp angle in the dark, allows you to accentuate any fine detail much greater than if you had ordinary daylight radiating down from various angles and reflecting off other surfaces.
Is that also true for shoe impressions or residues on hard surfaces as well as dirt?
Not necessarily with oblique lighting, but with other types of lighting it might be.
Let me show you what has been marked as Defense 1327--Mr. Harris, I think we can do this up here.
All right. Mr. Ragle, would you address the jury when you are giving your answers, please.
Okay. This is a photograph of the glove and part of the pavement that was a sidewalk at Bundy, and this is apparently the hat and someone pointing their finger at this particular item.
Now, we've had testimony indicating that is Detective Fuhrman pointing at a glove. Is there, in your opinion, any legitimate investigative reason for having a picture with a detective pointing at a piece of evidence?
What is the standard procedure with respect to photographing items of evidence with respect to having people in the photographs?
Does having a person walking around a crime scene cause any potential problems as well?
Now, 1328 is a picture--a later picture of the glove with an evidence tag on it. You have seen that one before?
Now, did I ask you to compare those two pictures to determine whether there had been any alteration of that particular area of the crime scene between the first picture and the second picture?
I'm not saying I'm going to sustain the objection, but we have visited this issue before.
Mr. Ragle, is it important, in the process of protecting a crime scene, that evidence not be altered or moved or picked up or replaced prior to the time of its collection and processing?
For the reasons I expressed before; the integrity of the evidence is then in question, the potential of adding or subtracting something from the evidence that can occur.
Your Honor, I'm wondering if we might display these to the jurors? I'm not sure they can all see them.
1386, can you see those? If you want, Mr. Blasier, you can bring them up and display them in front of the jury box; however, these photographs have been displayed before. This is to allow the jurors to recollect and refresh their recollections as to these two items.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the lunch hour. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any conclusions about the matter until the matter is submitted to you, or allow anyone to communicate with you about the case. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. And Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Scheck, confer with each other on those other two issues. All right. Thank you.
That it fell below a minimum standard.
Every crime scene is like a book or a dictionary. I mean, if you know where to open up the pages and look up the information, you can answer many questions.
The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that they then did not collect that blanket and retain it for whatever evidential value it might have had because it was in contact with one of the bodies.
There is no reason that I know of.
No.