All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Ragle, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Larry Ragle, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Ragle. The record should reflect Larry Ragle is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Ragle, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER
Mr. Ragle, I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions about latent or faint shoeprint or other impressions that might be left at a crime scene. Did I understand your testimony before lunch to be that the nighttime is a much better time to locate such prints if they exist than the daytime?
And what equipment is available if a latent or faint shoeprint was visible or was identified that way? Are there procedures available to make a record of that and preserve those prints?
There are lifting devices that are available, static electrical dust lifting devices and there's ordinary rubber lifting devices that are available.
And do those techniques allow you to preserve such prints so that they can be analyzed later or examined by any parties later?
Are you aware of whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department SID division has such equipment available to it?
It's listed in their procedurals handbook, their--they call it their crime scene policies and procedural handbook or field scene, something like that.
Sustained. Answer is stricken. Jurors to disregard. The question was, do you know if they have the equipment, not what their manual says.
Is that equipment that's readily available to law enforcement agencies everywhere?
Show you 1071. Does that appear to be the field manual that you were just referring to?
Is it important in your view for a crime lab to have a manual in place that sets forth procedures to be used by criminalists in processing crime scenes?
And there's been testimony that that manual has never been actually adopted, that it existed for several years and has never gotten past the first draft stage. In your opinion, is that acceptable procedure with respect to having your methods documented?
Not have any methods set forth in a manual that guides everybody on collecting evidence the same way.
Okay. Have you reviewed that field manual, the portions of it that relate to evidence collection?
And do you have an opinion on whether certain parts of that manual state procedures, correct procedures that should be used in processing evidence?
Let me ask you one question about death notification. What is the standard practice with respect to death notifications in homicides cases?
Do many of the suggestions or comments that you've made about inadequacies with the Los Angeles Police Department relate to the prevention or the detection of evidence tampering?
Do you recall when we talked about the five categories of processing a crime scene and what the general framework is, what your goals are in processing crime scenes?
The step that I described as documentation, all of that--all the efforts within that particular step are intended to maintain the integrity of the evidence, the identity of the evidence and to establish that only authorized individuals who either collected the evidence or in any way open the evidence or work with the evidence or record it.
Now, have you followed the testimony with respect to the drawing of Mr. Simpson's reference blood and the procedure that was used to preserve that and transport it?
Now, let me show you People's exhibit 163-H. That is a sample envelope that corresponds to the envelope used to contain Mr. Simpson's reference sample. Is that what that appears to be to you?
Now, the procedure set forth on that envelope indicate that it should be sealed once the evidence--
What is the proper procedure with respect to sealing evidence at the time that it's collected in your view?
Any--anytime the sample is placed in a container like this and then transferred from one person to the other, the evidence should be sealed by the person who is the originator of the evidence.
In your opinion, is it acceptable to place a reference blood vial in that envelope and have it remain unsealed for several days?
What is your opinion as to the proper technique that should be used in terms of marking evidence as it's collected?
Isn't that kind of vague, because we have such a wide range of different types, some of what can't actually be marked itself, so--
Let's take, as an example, the swatches that were made from bloodstains, and I'm going to ask you specifically about the procedure that should be used to identify those or mark them. In your opinion, what is the appropriate procedure to use once that item is collected?
Since swatches cannot be actually written on, they should be documented by counting them, by placing--placing them in some sort of container where they will be dried if they're not already dry. Ideally, they would be either photographed or sketched and then they would be placed in a package and sealed; and in this case, since it's available, sealed with some sort of tape such as this tape.
Does the LAPD field manual that is not actually in effect provide a procedure for fully documenting the collection of evidence?
Now, with respect to removing dry bloodstain from various surfaces, do you have an opinion on the proper way that that should be done?
Well, the best way to remove a sample of blood from any dry surface that's not movable--the best way, if it's on a movable surface, is to move the surface directly to the laboratory by the process we've already discussed, the documentation, packaging and preservation.
But if it's on something that cannot be moved, the first attempt should be to at least evaluate whether or not some of it can be scraped off of the surface with a probe or with a scalpel blade or something like that so that the blood is left in as close to the same condition it was at the crime scene. If that's not possible or if only part of the sample can be removed that way, then the next step is to dampen something, either a swatch, the technique that's used in Los Angeles or at least by the Los Angeles Police Department, or a cotton swab similar to a q-tip, and to dampen that and then to apply that to the remaining stain or whatever is left of the stain until all of that is transferred onto the cotton.
Now, there's been testimony in this case that wet blood swatches were stored in plastic bags. In your opinion, is that an acceptable technique to use to preserve blood swatches?
It's a very hostile environment for any biological material to be placed into, first of all, any plastic bag, particularly when it's wet.
Now, what is the proper procedure in terms of whether that--whether blood swatches should be dried right at the scene or dried later?
Now, again, with respect to documenting such things as bindles or containers with blood swatches in them, is it important in your view that they be initialed by the person who actually does the collection?
If more than one person is involved with handling or collecting that evidence, is it important that both those people be indicated on the packaging material?
We've had testimony in this case that the plastic bags that contain the wet swatches were transported back to the Los Angeles Police Department and then discarded. Do you have an opinion on whether that was an appropriate procedure to follow in the collection and processing of bloodstains?
That anything that contained the evidence such as the plastic bag should be retained.
KEY QUOTETo answer any question that comes up later; was there anything in the plastic bag that could have interfered with any subsequent test, was the bag itself something that could interfere with any subsequent test, was there any residue of the sample, since it's placed in there wet, that could be of some value for further testing.
Is preserving packaging material important if there's some question down the road about whether evidence has been switched or altered in some fashion?
And if there's blood residue left on the inside of the plastic bags, can that be useful in testing whether or not a later sample actually came from that bag or not?
A photo log is like a diary. It's a sequential list of photographs that are taken at any particular event involving an investigation.
And you have an understanding as to whether or not a complete photo log was kept by Los Angeles Police Department that documents the order in which pictures were taken at the Bundy or Rockingham scenes?
Do you have any knowledge of whether or not a photo log was maintained for photographs that were taken at Bundy and Rockingham?
And do you have an opinion on whether or not appropriate documentation with respect to a photo log was kept of photographs taken at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes?
From your knowledge of what was done with respect to creating a photo log, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was done adequately by the Los Angeles Police Department?
Did you attempt to locate a photo log from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the order in which photographs were taken at Rockingham and Bundy?
In your opinion, is it an acceptable procedure to process a crime scene such as Bundy and Rockingham without keeping a photo log?
Specifically with respect to evidence items such as the socks that were found at Mr. Simpson's residence in this case, do you believe that it's important that a complete documentation be maintained as to when photographs were taken, in what sequence of evidence, items such as that?
Are you familiar with the use of videotaping or video cameras in the processing of crime scenes?
Are you familiar with techniques that are used to document crime scenes through the use of videotaping?
The technique of walking through a crime scene and viewing the scene through the camcorder.
Now, does that serve some purpose with respect to briefing other officers on what is at a crime scene?
That's exactly what I recommend in my teaching of crime scene investigators; is to use this camcorder, particularly the kind that has a viewing screen on it for a quick review. For people who arrive at the crime scene who want to know or who need to know what the crime scene looks at, rather than having them walk through the scene again and in adding any other possible changes to the scene, to view the scene on a camcorder.
Now, what is the--what's the disadvantage of having--of not having a videotape to show other officers?
Well, if they generally have a need to know, they have to go into the crime scene and walk through it.
Well, can the same purpose be achieved by taking still photographs at a crime scene?
To some extent, Polaroid photographs taken at a crime scene because they're developed almost instantly. But regular photography requires, even if there's an all night one-hour service, at least an hour.
Now, do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department has videotaping equipment available to it?
Now, we've had testimony that the only scene videotape that was taken was for insurance purposes at Rockingham after a search was conducted. In your opinion, is that a proper use of the videotaping equipment that they had available to them?
In your opinion, is it acceptable or unacceptable if a police agency has videotaping equipment available to them to not take any videotapes of a crime scene?
There's been testimony that Detective Fuhrman used the interior of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium as a sort of command post after he arrived at the scene. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate use of the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?
There's been testimony that the inside of the condominium was used by police officers to either sit down and make notes or conduct briefings of other police officers. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is appropriate?
What's your understanding of the use to which the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium was used by the Los Angeles Police Department at the time that they arrived at the crime scene?
Counsel--counsel, just focus in on the particular witness that sat on the couch and made notes, focus in on the particular witness who used the telephone, focus in on the particular witness who used the lights. Let's not--these are very vague questions, unless you want to narrow it down to the evidence in this case.
With respect to Detective Mark Fuhrman using the inside of the condominium to sit down and write his notes, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was appropriate?
It is inappropriate to do that unless that area had been processed for evidence before that time.
KEY QUOTEAnd why is it important that the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium be processed in any fashion?
Now, are you aware of I believe it was Officer Riske's testimony, that he used a telephone inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium to I believe contact other police officers? Do you recall that testimony?
And do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate action to take on his part?
That that was inappropriate to use the phone inside the victim's house at that time.
The most obvious reason would be, if somebody else had used that phone that's involved in this situation, there could have been fingerprints on that phone. The other reasons are because of technology today and redialing. And, again, I'm not on my own knowledge, but testimony I heard, that there's other mechanisms on that phone that would indicate the last incoming call that--
All right. As to the technology regarding last incoming phone number, that will be stricken. Not supported by the evidence.
Well, is there--do you have an understanding of whether that telephone was able to store the last number that was used to call out?
What's your understanding as to the timing as to when the Coroner's office removed the victims' bodies with respect to that crime scene being actually processed?
This would have been before criminalist Fung and Mazzola did at least most of their processing.
Have you reviewed the testimony of Detective Lange with respect to his reasons why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?
Your Honor, I would like to read from page 17638 and ask the witness his opinion of this explanation if I might.
Now, Mr. Ragle, I want to read to you the testimony from Detective Lange with respect to why the scene was processed in that manner and ask for your opinion about this. "Bundy was a close-in crime scene. The victims were close to one another. The evidence was close to the victims. A determination was made, as one example, to remove the victims prior to the evidence because of this. If the evidence had been several feet away or out in the street or something else, perhaps the victims would have stayed at that location while the evidence was collected. You just have to deal with what you have." Do you have an opinion on whether that is an acceptable explanation for why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?
Foundation for the opinion. Examination of the crime scene photos, appreciation for the proximities, you need a foundation for that.
In forming an opinion that you have, have you considered the crime scene photographs that you've reviewed as well as testimony about the order in which things were done and the proximity of various pieces of evidence to the bodies?
And do you have an opinion based on that as to whether Detective Lange's explanation for why that was done is acceptable or not?
It is 180 degrees in opposition of how a close-in crime scene should be processed. The evidence that is nearest the body--you have to start from the outside and work your way in and you can't move--you could move the victim and you should move the victim obviously if the victim--if the victim's alive. I mean you have to endanger the evidence to save the person's life. That happens a lot. If there is no chance of that, then it's a slow methodical approach to the victims and it's the last thing you would do, would be to move the victims, and you should never move the victims over the evidence or have to move the evidence in order to move deceased individuals.
KEY QUOTENow, have you examined photographs of the various pieces of evidence in this case and determined that some items of evidence were moved from the taking of one picture until some later picture, specifically the envelope and the glove?
What is the importance in your view of determining how that kind of movement of evidence took place?
What is the importance or is there any importance to trying to determine how evidence got moved prior to the time it was collected?
The importance is--I'm looking over here. I thought the photos were still there--is that the--
I don't think I need them. It's just that any evidence that is in the path of the movement of the deceased or the people--to lift an adult, it requires at least two people. So there has to be an intrusion into the very heart of the crime scene here, and obviously anything that is in the way can get moved or it can get stepped on or it can get altered.
Now, with respect to trace evidence such as dirt or other trace evidence that might be on an item of evidence such as the envelope, what's the proper procedure to use to preserve that type of evidence?
Okay. I believe the appropriate material to remove any evidence that is fragile is to do it at the crime scene, to inspect the evidence, to determine if there's something that would be lost if you attempt to pick it up and put it in a container, and if that's the decision of the criminalist, to collect it there rather than take the chance of losing it.
Now, you talked a little earlier about the proper photographic documentation for items of evidence. Let's talk specifically about blood drops. Have you reviewed the photographs that have been made available to you of the--what's been called the Bundy blood drops?
And do you have an opinion on whether or not that photographic documentation that you have seen is adequate?
There are a couple of reasons. Every photograph of something like that that's close up--I think I mentioned this earlier--should have a ruler, and in the case of something like blood drops, should have a indication of the direction, compass or not the direction necessarily of the movement of the blood, but of north or some--some reference point so that a viewer later on can see this, the ruler can tell them the size, and obviously there has to be some other indicator or marker or number, an item number, something like that and then direction of north.
Let me show you what's been marked as Defense 1329. That's a picture of one of the Bundy drops that's been referred to; is it not?
And can you use this picture as an example of how that was improperly documented at least through this picture?
Only one of the items that I suggested a moment ago shows up in this photograph, and that is, there is a tag indicating a photo number. That's appropriate. What's inappropriate about that tag by the way is the placement of it, it is too close and is obliterating or at least--I shouldn't say obliterating--it is masking the area underneath the piece of paper. It looks like a 3 x 5 card or something like that, and that's too close. There should be-- it could be this close if another photograph is taken without anything in it, but what is missing here entirely is a ruler and a pointer or a notation that north is to the top or to the bottom, to the side, whatever the photograph is, however it was oriented.
Mr. Ragle, is it important to--when processing a crime scene, to preserve blood spatter evidence that might be on items in the direct--in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene?
And are you familiar with blood spatter that appears on the gated area in the--surrounding the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?
Eventually, a scene like this, there would be some attempt to interpret what happened, reconstruct the events; and all that cast-off blood or spattered blood, or whatever the reason that blood appeared there, could be used to determine what happened.
And from the material that you reviewed, do you have an opinion on whether that aspect of the crime scene was adequately documented?
And from the photographs that were supplied to you, assuming hypothetically that those were the only photographs to preserve that evidence, do you feel that--
--do you feel that the photographs that you were provided adequately document the blood spatter on that area of the crime scene?
We're vague because we don't really know what we're talking about here, which photographs we're talking about.
There was an assortment of photographs that showed various blood, what would be called blood spatter or splatter.
Now, if that is adequately documented through photographs and measurements and any other means available, is it possible to attempt to reconstruct what might have happened in that area, at least partially, that accounted for that blood?
We have had testimony that criminalist Fung at the direction of Detective Lange removed the glove in the bag that had been found at the Rockingham area and took it into the Bundy crime scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body I believe to show it to Detective Lange.
Are you familiar with the testimony that Dennis Fung took the Rockingham glove inside of a bag into the Bundy crime scene to show it to Detective Lange?
Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is an appropriate technique to use?
My opinion, that nothing should be taken back into the crime scene from one crime scene to the other.
It's just bad practice. It--there's a chance that something can go wrong and contamination could occur.
Have you reviewed the testimony with respect to Mr. Simpson's reference blood, specifically that it was taken by Detective Vannatter back to Rockingham?
And do you have an opinion on whether or not that was appropriate for Detective Vannatter to do?
The same exact situation. I don't believe that any evidence should be taken from one location back into another location unless there's some, you know, extremely important reason, and I can't imagine any reason would be that important.
Have you reviewed Detective Lange's testimony with respect to why the hands of the victims were not bagged separately prior to the time that the Coroner moved the bodies?
Do you have an opinion on whether or not it is acceptable in moving bodies from a crime scene that they--the entire body be contained in plastic as opposed to the hands being individually bagged?
In any type of crime where there's potential contact between two people, there is the possibility of trace evidence underneath the fingernails, around the hands; and once the remains have been placed in a body bag, the chances of that evidence being contamination--contaminated by some of the victim's own blood which is going to be loose in that bag is obvious.
And what is the appropriate procedure for when bodies are transported in a sheet or a body bag with respect to preserving the container that was used to carry the bodies?
Because key pieces of evidence, significant material can fall off of the remains, off the clothing; and if it's in the bottom of a body bag and that body bag is disposed of, so is the evidence.
Did you review the testimony of I believe it was Mr. Fung who testified that Mr. Simpson's reference blood was placed in a garbage bag at Rockingham to be transported back to SID?
Did you review the testimony of Dennis Fung that he placed or that the reference blood of Mr. Simpson was placed in a garbage bag at Rockingham to be transported to SID?
Sustained. Sustained. No. Inappropriate way to pose the question. Reference sample inside the gray envelope inside the garbage bag.
The reference sample inside the gray envelope inside the trash bag. Have you reviewed that testimony?
And also, did you watch the testimony that Mr. Fung testifying that Andrea Mazzola, who was carrying that garbage bag, was never informed or was not informed when transporting as to what was in it?
There are two to three different levels here. First of all, the bag itself is not in and of itself anything inherently wrong with that as long as it's a fresh bag. The container--this container I'm holding up, this analyzed evidence container that is used--
--and it's--"Inappropriate" may not be the right word, but it's a big chance of giving something like that to somebody to carry and not inform him what's inside of it because of the fragile nature of a glass vial.
Are you familiar with testimony to the effect that the envelope with the prescription glasses contained within them, that at some point after that item was collected by the Los Angeles Police Department, one of the lenses disappeared?
Are you familiar with testimony to the effect that originally, there were two lenses in the glasses that were in the envelope that was retrieved from the Bundy crime scene and now there's only one lens?
It is 180 degrees in opposition of how a close-in crime scene should be processed... it's the last thing you would do, would be to move the victims, and you should never move the victims over the evidence or have to move the evidence in order to move deceased individuals.
I don't believe that any evidence should be taken from one location back into another location unless there's some, you know, extremely important reason, and I can't imagine any reason would be that important.
That is not a proper technique.
It is inappropriate to do that unless that area had been processed for evidence before that time.
Anything that contained the evidence such as the plastic bag should be retained... was there any residue of the sample, since it's placed in there wet, that could be of some value for further testing.