If it came to your attention that there was a piece of evidence that had been collected in one form and part of that evidence had disappeared at some later time, what is the appropriate response of the investigating agency?
It would be, in my opinion, that they should make an attempt to find out why some of the evidence is missing.
You and I discussed the other day the concept of a team approach to processing a crime scene. Do you recall that?
And does that tie into what you were talking about earlier, having the Coroner and the criminalist and the detectives working together?
In a death investigation, it's important to have the three different disciplines involved in the investigation because of their varying levels of expertise. The detective or the police investigator has a particular function. The deputy Coroner is a--what I would consider a scientific investigator, has a specific function that compliments the investigator's knowledge, and the criminalist's job is to come to the crime scene with a knowledge of crime scene reconstruction, a knowledge of the types of evidence that they--that they can look for at different types of crimes and how to collect and maintain that evidence in as close as possible its original condition and in a--there is another person in this team, and I don't think you mentioned--
The field evidence technician or the what some people call the identification investigator.
Incidentally, do you have an opinion as to whether Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, given the manner in which they processed these two crime scenes, whether they were practicing criminalistics if you will?
It is my opinion that they were not practicing criminalistics as it should be done at a crime scene.
KEY QUOTEAs a forensic science investigator that is trained and is knowledgeable of the types of evidence, how they should be collected and preserved.
Mr. Ragle, assume hypothetically that items of evidence such as the envelope and the glove had been moved in some fashion. Whose responsibility would it be to determine who moved it, how it was moved and why it was moved?
The responsibility to determine that depends on the timing and when it's noted. If the--if the crime scene criminalist comes to the scene and sees something in one location, and a little bit later, he sees it in another location, it's his responsibility or her responsibility right then to try to find out why or who moved this. If it's discovered through some other method later on through photography, then it's a departmental issue and it would be either the chief criminalist or the director's responsibility to find out, you know, who is moving things unauthorized. And I'll assume this was unauthorized movement at the crime scene, and if--or possibly, the department's if they have that type of follow-up investigation somewhere else in the department.
Have you specifically examined the area of the door sill, the bottom area of the doors, the front doors of the car, the area that's below the bottom of the door?
Now, let me show you--I want you to assume hypothetically that Detective Fuhrman testified that he observed what appeared to be some blood marks on the bottom area of the door and I want you to assume further that criminalist Fung examined the door sill area in an attempt to identify those marks and circled the three areas that you see on that photograph. Do you have that in mind.
I want you to assume hypothetically that Detective Fuhrman testified that he observed four brush-like marks that appeared to be bloodstains on the door sill area of the Bronco.
It is my opinion that they were not practicing criminalistics as it should be done at a crime scene.
They should make an attempt to find out why some of the evidence is missing.
If the crime scene criminalist comes to the scene and sees something in one location, and a little bit later, he sees it in another location, it's his responsibility or her responsibility right then to try to find out why or who moved this.