Good morning again, Mr. Matheson.

Good morning.

You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And he is undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

Good morning, Mr. Matheson.

Good morning.

Mr. Morning, folks.

THE JURY: Good morning.

Mr. Matheson, when did the LAPD SID division begin doing DNA testing?

I believe our first case was completed in October of 1993.

And prior to your first case being completed, was there a developmental phase that you were involved in?

There was a developmental phase, yes.

And how long did that go on for?

In one extent or another for about four years, three years, something like that.

What was your role in the development of that program?

I was the supervisor of the unit and just generally oversaw it. I was not directly involved in any of the actual process or analysis.

Now, when you say "the unit," you started putting this together four or five years before `93. What was going on during that period of time? Or did I misunderstand you?

I think that is a little longer than I said, but we initially, back in I believe it would have been `89, started looking at the feasibility of doing RFLP type DNA analysis in our laboratory and we worked on that for a number of years, attempting to both acquire the equipment necessary and bring that on line.

When you say "we," tell me what your role in that was.

"we" meaning collectively as a unit. I was the supervisor of the unit and there were three criminalists that were assigned to the project from within the serology unit.

So you were in charge of that project?

Yes.

And that was studying RFLP technology?

Yes.

And the lab did not go into that particular technology, correct?

No, we have never done case work in that, that's correct.

And what is the reason that you have not gone into that area?

Well, the major reason focused around the facility. We had a situation where we were not comfortable using the radioactive isotopes and the sort of physical layout that we had. We were not given the budget to be able to make the modifications that we needed to bring that on line and decided that it was not an area that we would pursue any longer.

Now, is your budget established by the police department?

This is irrelevant, your Honor.

Vaguely. Proceed. Go ahead and answer the question. Who sets your budget?

The city of Los Angeles, the council and the mayor's office.

When you have to try and get funding for a project that you want to do, who do you go to?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

Well, ultimately the city council. It is an extremely long process that can take in excess of a year. As a matter of fact, we are about ready to start on a budget process for the `96-`97 fiscal year.

Now--that is one of the reasons why you are not accredited, that it takes too long to do that with the city?

Not that it takes too long; it is just it has never been approved.

Now, at some point you abandoned RFLP technology and began studying PCR technology, correct?

That's correct.

When did that happen?

Well, I don't know exactly. I think, as we are looking at DNA technology in general, I would say probably in 1990, 1991.

And again, was that--you were in charge of that project?

Yes.

And how many people were working with you on that project?

I believe we had two people working on that. Initially--initially there was one and then it became two and eventually three.

Two in addition to yourself?

Yes.

Now, prior to the time that you started doing case work, describe just briefly what the developmental stage was in the PCR area.

Well, initially it was determining what type of equipment we needed, going through the equipment lists, getting that through the budget process, acquiring the equipment. The criminalists that were involved needed to receive training. They went out and received that. Eventually, once the equipment was in-house, we proceeded to set it up and performed the tests within our laboratory to make sure that the PCR could be performed properly under our setting.

Now--

That phase is called the validation studies, correct?

Yes, the development of our system and eventually validation within our laboratory.

Now, what is your role today with respect to your PCR lab?

Well, it is one step further away; no longer being the supervisor of the unit. I now manage the serology unit, which is one of the sections that is involved in it, so basically there is very little direct involvement at this point.

Now, do you consider yourself an expert in DNA technology?

No, I do not.

And during the time that you were developing the PCR program for the lab, the people that were working on that under you, did they have more experience than you or less?

They had much more experience.

And in the current state of your lab who is in charge, directly in charge of the PCR lab?

I would like to point out that when I mentioned much more experienced, I mean experience in the area of PCR. Currently the supervisor of the unit is a gentleman by the name of Larry Blanton.

Now, at the time you started doing case work in--did you say October of `93?

Yes.

I think we are going far afield at this point. We are establishing what he does at the lab. Since there is no testimony of PCR DNA testing by this witness, I think it is irrelevant at this point.

Now, Mr. Matheson, I provided you with a binder this morning. Have you had a chance to look at that?

I looked at the--opened it up, looked at the cover page and just flipped through it. That is the extent of review of this particular binder.

Does that appear to be the field manual that we were talking about briefly yesterday?

It appears to be a copy of our manual, yes.

And that is the manual you provided to us, correct?

Yes.

Now, did I understand you yesterday to say that the field unit itself, the unit that goes out to crime scenes and processes crime scenes doesn't have a manual; is that right?

Not anyone other than the one that is in process, this draft one, that's correct.

But that is not in effect yet?

That's correct.

And that has been in process for how many years?

I believe originally we started working on it in probably mid of 1992.

So there is no formal document anywhere available to criminalists who might need guidance out in the field in terms of the correct procedures to use to collect evidence?

Assumes facts not in evidence, "might need guidance."

Overruled.

Is it your opinion that not having a manual for your field unit is an acceptable practice, scientifically acceptable?

Vague, argumentative.

Overruled.

I think it is preferable that we have a manual; however, I believe you can still do good work and provide training and have people do acceptable work out there without having one.

Are you familiar with other crime labs and how they operate?

To some extent, yes.

What other labs are you familiar with?

Well, I interact with--

Vague as to "familiar."

Overruled.

I interact with a lot of people in our profession in labs all over this state.

Now, your lab, in terms of size of your lab compared to other labs in the state, just give me a rough approximation of where you fall.

Well, we are definitely not the largest. I would say that we probably would fall, oh, maybe in the three-quarter point. There are a number of labs larger than us and many more that are smaller.

Of the labs that are approximately your size and larger, do you know of any other lab besides yours that doesn't have a manual for field operations?

No foundation for personal knowledge.

Overruled.

If you know?

I don't know whether they do or not.

Is this a matter of some concern to you as a supervisor of the lab, that there be a manual in effect for everybody to look at?

Well, eventually I think it would be great. I think it is a good idea that we have it laid down and in that form. That is why we are working on it.

Now, when you say you are working on it, is this draft manual available to people who want to look at it who work for you?

Yes, it is out. It is not kept hidden or secret or anything, but it has not been presented.

Is it kept in the crime lab truck?

I don't believe so, no.

Do you recall is there a provision in here that says it is to be kept in the crime lab truck?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

Yes, I do. It is in the introduction.

But that is not done yet?

No, because it is not a normal document of our division yet.

Now, is it accurate to say that many of the things in here, however, are accepted procedures that you want your people to follow?

Yes.

Now, please look at page 12. You numbered the pages down in the lower right. Is it your current procedure that it is the job of the criminalist at the crime scene to direct the photographer in the photographer's job?

It is the Criminalist's job to direct the photographer when it comes to the evidence, the overall documentation and the evidence that is being collected. They do have other tasks besides that, so we are not directing all their activities, but we do direct the things that are associated with what our interest is.

So in the area of collecting evidence that the criminalist has direct responsibility for, they are also in charge of making sure the photographer does his or her job, correct?

Yes, that is part of their responsibility, is to get their items photographed.

Now, one of the procedures you set forth in here is that ordinarily photograph numbers should correspond to evidence item numbers, correct?

Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

Yes, that is what it says. Normally the photographed item number will correspond to the subsequent booking item numbers.

And is that a current procedure that you do have in operation?

Yeah. We try and make them correspond. It doesn't always work out that way, but just to keep things less confusing, you attempt to do that.

The reason for doing that is to keep or hopefully to avoid as many different numbering systems as possible for items that come into evidence, correct?

Yes.

That can be a source of great confusion if you wind up with a photo number that corresponds to some other evidence item that is not in that photo?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

Well, I don't know if it is great confusion. It does complicate the situation slightly, but there are always references referencing a photo item number to a property item number.

And that comes from the forms that the criminalists have available to them at the scene?

A combination of that, plus the property report that is eventually written, yes.

So the crime scene checklist and other forms that are available to the criminalist at the scene, one of the purposes of that is to record all information necessary so that you can hook up the photos with the evidence that is collected?

Yes.

Now, let me direct your attention to page 13 at the bottom of the page. Is it your current lab's procedure to have criminalists, when they conduct a search of a crime scene for purposes of evidence detection, use bright lights, ultraviolet lights or alternate light sources or laser lights?

These tools are all available to the criminalist if they feel it is necessary.

And those tools are available in the crime scene truck, are they not?

Yes.

And those tools presumably are to be used when there is evidence of the type that lends itself to being looked at by these instruments, correct?

If the criminalist feels it is necessary to use them, they are available, yes.

And what do you use bright light, ultraviolet light or laser light for, generally?

It is not relevant, your Honor.

It is compound.

What do you use laser light sources for?

Well, the laser or alternate light source, out at a crime scene, mainly is used by the criminalist to look for body fluids, such as semen, saliva, that type of thing.

And it is also there to look for things such as shoeprints, correct?

Not relevant, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Well, I--as far as shoeprints, I have never been involved with it used for that particular technique. I suppose that it could be. But the primary use of those items is the detection of certain body fluids.

And you would agree that at the Bundy crime scene there was certainly evidence of substantial bodily fluids that had been spilled?

Well, it is overbroad as to "bodily fluids."

Overruled.

There was definitely quite a bit of blood there, yes.

And now, it is accurate, is it not, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola never used any of this equipment on any crime scene they processed in this case? I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. At Bundy crime scene.

No personal knowledge.

Foundation.

If you know?

Still no personal knowledge.

Foundational. Do you know?

I don't know all the tools they used, no.

Now, you were in charge of reviewing their work, were you not?

Overbroad and vague as to "reviewing."

Sustained.

Were you in charge of reviewing the work that they did or didn't do at the Bundy crime scene?

Still overbroad and vague.

Overruled.

One of my duties as supervisor of the trace unit was ultimately to review the field notes, yes.

When you say "ultimately," what do you mean?

Well, the procedure that was in place in the laboratory at that time is that when a criminalist completed a crime scene and everything was booked, as far as the evidence goes and the notes are completed, they were placed in a location in the trace analysis unit where our criminalist 3 of the field unit, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Raquel would retrieve those, he would do an initial review of them and give them to me as a recommendation as to whether or not the notes should be filed or reviewed with the criminalist.

And as part of that procedure it is part of your job to review those notes as well, isn't it?

If I felt so, yes.

And by reviewing those notes you would know what techniques were used at the crime scene to collect evidence or identify evidence, wouldn't you?

I would know it at the time I read it if it was recorded, yes.

Do you ever review reports for the purpose of assessing the performance of a criminalist in terms of whether they used the equipment available to them that might be appropriate for a particular crime scene?

That is part of the review process. I ultimately like I said, I have allowed Mr. Raquel, because he is very well acquainted with field procedures, to do the initial part of that review and that is part of what he does, is to look to see if that information was noted. It is not a requirement that if a device such as a laser, or the alternate light source is used out there, that that is a notation that is made.

And that is a subjective judgment made by the criminalist as to whether that particular criminalist thinks it might be useful or not?

That's correct.

Now, ultraviolet light is used to identify dust residue shoe impressions, is it not?

Well, again, the major use of that particular item, it is great to have a variety of different light sources out in the field. Our may use for ultraviolet again is for the detection of particularly body fluids, not necessarily blood.

And it is your understanding that the only light source used at the Bundy crime scene by Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola was a flashlight?

No personal knowledge, not relevant, beyond the scope.

If you know?

If you know?

Motion to strike as nonresponsive.

Overruled.

Now, also talking again about page 13 at the bottom, one of the techniques that is set forth there for criminalists to perform involves wheel base and tire tread measurements, correct?

That is mentioned here, yes.

And that would be something that they would do if there was evidence of tire tracks at a crime scene?

Beyond the scope, not relevant.

Overruled.

That is indicated there as a technique that if they feel it is important to record, then yes, it is something that should be recorded.

That was not done at the Bundy crime scene, correct?

Not to my knowledge, no.

No foundation.

Overruled.

Now, let me ask you to turn to page 16. That is a short page. Why don't you look at that and tell me whether that is a current policy of your lab?

(Witness complies.) it is not a strict current policy, no.

Now, do you think that is a desirable policy?

Well, irrelevant.

Overruled.

This, as many things in this manual, are guidelines and some flexibility is needed when dealing with--with evidence. I would hate to not perform an analysis on something just because we had not yet had the opportunity to give it a bar code.

Now, what we are talking about, so to keep everybody out of the dark, is trying to get evidence booked as quickly as possible and by "booked" I mean logged into the computer system into your secure unit at the lab, correct?

Well, it is not relevant. Calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

Well, the references that we are reading from now deals with having unbooked laboratory--excuse me--unbooked evidence in the laboratory. It doesn't specifically mention anything about time frames or as soon as possible or anything like that.

Well, it talks about evidence being booked at the ECU--which is where it gets bar coding, correct?

Yes.

Let me refer you to page 20. Is it your current lab's policy that criminalists in the field should not perform tests on extremely small samples where the test in the field might consume the entire sample to prevent further testing?

That is what they are taught, yes.

And is that a good procedure in your view?

Yes.

Now, there was a field test performed on the spot on the Bronco by the door handle. Do you know which spot I'm talking about?

Yes, I do.

At the Rockingham scene?

Yes.

And that spot was also collected, correct?

That's correct.

And it was collected after that presumptive test was performed on it, correct?

It is my understanding, yes.

And the presumptive test involved touching it with a swab--with a wetted swab and adding a chemical to the swab to see if there is a reaction, correct?

Adding a couple of chemicals, yes.

Now, is it accurate that when that spot was then collected there was insufficient amount of material to perform any further tests?

To foundation, personal knowledge.

Overruled. Do you know?

Not specifically, no.

Let's move on.

Now, performing such tests can also disturb items of evidence, correct?

In the field or the laboratory?

Vague.

In the field?

Performing a presumptive blood test on it?

Yes.

Yes, it does. It removes a small portion of it.

Now, you are aware that a presumptive test was performed on the glove found at Rockingham at the scene?

Yes.

And that was at the direction of Detective Vannatter, I believe. Are you aware of that?

I believe it was at the request of him, yes.

And in order to do a test like that requires at least a minimal amount of manipulation of the item to do the test, correct?

You have to, to some extent, deal with the item, yes.

And when you manipulate items of evidence such as that, you take a chance of moving evidence around that might be on it or depositing evidence that wasn't on it before on it?

Well, anytime you manipulate something, obviously you are going to be affecting it in some way. Just the mere fact of touching it or moving it changes its location. Depending on how it is done will minimize any sort of alteration that occurs to the evidence.

So would you agree that it is desirable to do as little manipulation as possible at the scene of evidentiary items such as a glove?

You always strive to keep the evidence in its original form as much as possible. You do, though, have to manipulate them. Just the mere process of collecting something, picking it up off the ground and placing it into a packaging type material deals with, you know, potentially altering something, but you have to do that. You can't analyze it in place without manipulating.

Now, please turn to page 116.

Under "training," that refers to criminalist 1's participating in field investigations in a trainee capacity. What does that mean?

It is still hearsay under 721, not relevant.

Sustained.

Was Andrea Mazzola's capacity on June 13th as a trainee working under Mr. Fung?

I'm still reading that.

Okay.

I sustained the objection, so that is irrelevant.

Excuse me.

She was still a probationary employee at the time, was she not?

I don't believe so, no.

On June 13th?

I don't know her exact start date. Probation is only six months. I don't believe she was probationary at that time.

I believe she testified it was a year. Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm definitely sure. Probation is six months.

And when did she start?

I don't know her exact date. We could resolve that.

I believe she indicated she started on January 24th of `94. Does that sound about right?

That could be accurate. I would want to confirm that to be sure, but--

So as of June 13th she would still be a probationary employee, just barely?

And probationary employee, that is a civil service term, is it not?

I believe so, yes.

And a probationary employee can be let go or not pass probation for any reason?

Well, I don't know about for any reason.

I think we are calling for a legal conclusion here. Let's not get into a point of law.

Does a probationary employee serve at the pleasure of her supervisor?

What do you mean by "at the pleasure"?

They can be let go for no reason, they have no civil service protection?

Counsel, we are not going to get into that. Proceed.

Looking at the bottom of that page--by the way, this is volume 7 we are referring to, the "quality assurance and control" portion of the manual, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And that is one page, correct?

Are we missing some of it?

No. I don't have the original volume in front of me or notebook in front of me, but that is what is in this copy here.

In your experience with other labs have you ever seen a quality assurance and control part of a manual that is only one-page long?

Well, it misstates the evidence, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Have you ever seen manuals from other crime labs?

I have seen portions of other manuals. I don't believe I have reviewed the whole manuals or all the manuals that exist in other laboratories.

As one of your jobs as a supervisor does that involve looking at other labs that do things to see whether they do them better and so you could learn from them?

I have reviewed how other labs do things, yes.

And of the labs that you have reviewed, have you ever seen a quality assurance and control manual or portion of a manual that is one-page long?

It is not relevant.

Sustained.

Now, the bottom of this one page talks about: "prior to approving and signing reports a supervisor should inspect all case notes, photographs, et cetera." is that a current policy of your lab?

Hearsay under 721.

Overruled.

Well, like I previously mentioned, we do have a procedure in place for reviewing notes prior to them being filed. As far as--I'm not sure what this refers to as far as signing reports. This was not prepared by myself, and I would reword some of this in a future version.

To take out having to sign it?

This is--signing of reports is really not relevant to this person's testimony on direct examination, counsel.

Your crime scene checklist has no provision anywhere on the form for a supervisor's signature, does it?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

No, it does not.

Now, please move to page 118.

Now, this is the chapter or the volume regarding record keeping and reporting procedures, correct?

That's correct.

And it is one-page long in a form, correct?

As it appears here, yes.

And is this the current policy of your lab or is this the extent of the current policy of your lab?

Are we talking about everything that is on the page?

Yes.

I will have to read it.

Mr. Blasier. What is the subject matter of this portion?

"record keeping and reporting procedures."

Not all of the items that are mentioned here are current policy within our laboratory.

Let me ask specifically about the portion describing: "all evidence collected as a result of field investigation or laboratory evidence removal services shall be accurately described on an LAPD property report." is that current policy?

Yes, it is.

And by "accurately described on a property report," does that include describing where an item came from?

That's correct, part of the information is to be able to place it back in its original location.

Now, the second page of this chapter is a witness critique form, correct?

Yes.

Is this a form that is currently in use?

Yes, it is.

And the purpose of the form is to provide the form--the criminalist is required to provide the form to a Judge or Prosecutor, Defense attorney in a case where they have testified to get input as to how they did, right?

They are recommended to take them with them, yes.

Do they do that?

Many do, yes.

Are they required to?

It currently is in a position where we encourage them to do it, we would like them to do it on every case; however, there is not currently a process whereby if somebody didn't, they would receive some sort of disciplinary action.

Is there any follow-up by the lab with the Court or counsel in a case to ensure that the form gets filled out?

No, there is not.

Is there any record kept of these forms for any particular criminalist?

If they are returned to us, yes.

Do you know whether forms were returned to you concerning any testimony in this case from Dennis Fung?

I would be very surprised if they were turned in on this case.

How about Andrea Mazzola?

No, we--not to my knowledge, we haven't received any.

Have you provided those forms to us?

Pardon me?

Have you provided any of those forms to us to fill out?

This is beyond the scope.

Sustained. It is irrelevant.

Let me ask you to turn to page 144. And this section concerns forensic photography, correct?

Yes, it does.

And it indicates that: "acceptable crime scene photography should tell a story by itself absent of any written or oral narrative." is that current policy?

That is what it says. I don't believe we have a policy to that effect, no.

Is that a good policy, in your view?

Not relevant.

Sustained.

The provision that says: "the original condition of the crime scene, the sequence of its search and recovery possessing of any evidence within should be exhaustively photographed." is that a current policy?

Not relevant, beyond the scope.

Sustained. It is beyond the scope.

Policy indicates to take copious photographs. Is that a current policy?

Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Isn't one of the jobs of the criminalist to guide the photographer in performing their job?

Been asked and answered.

Do you have any responsibility for determining whether the photographer does their job properly or not?

It is vague as to in what capacity.

Overruled. He is one of the managers.

Well, for one thing, we only have one photographer that works within the criminalistics laboratory. We are not direct supervisors or managers of our photographic section.

Is there any written policy that applies to him in terms of how he should do his job?

Or her.

Or her?

Something that exists within the photographic unit or section?

Yes.

I have not seen one, no.

How about anywhere in the crime lab?

I have not seen one that specifically delineates the proper job or procedures to be used by a photographer in the field.

Could you look at page 145 that talks about procedure to use in photographing bloodstains. Is that a current procedure in your lab?

Not relevant, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Did you ask if this is policy?

Yes?

Because the manual is not completed, we do not have a policy on this. The general information that is there is appropriate and accurate, but we do not have a policy.

Now, one of the procedures that is described there involves taking pictures of bloodstains with scales going in both directions to give some scale to a photograph that is taken of a blood stain, correct?

This is referencing blood stain patterns; not just any blood stain.

How about bloodstains? Is it your understanding that the proper procedure is to photograph bloodstains with a scale so that you can have some reference point to determine the size of a stain?

Vague as to bloodstain or bloodstain pattern.

Overruled. The jury has already seen what we are talking about in this case. Proceed.

It is good practice to have a scale in the scene whenever you are photographing evidence.

This is about the third witness who has testified to this. There are several photographs that don't have the scale. It is common sense argument. We all understand. It will be nice.

Proceed.

Is that particular procedure that has been described the procedure that is supposed to be followed by your photographers?

We recommend that scales be placed in the scenes when evidence is photographed, yes.

When it is not followed do you take any corrective action?

Irrelevant.

Sustained.

Please go to page 151.

This section deals with "crime scene investigation," correct?

Yes, it does.

And there is a statement in there that says: "statistics show that less than two percent of all available evidence is possibly detected, collected, preserved, examined and introduced in Court," correct?

Hearsay.

Sustained.

Do you agree with that statement?

Hearsay.

Sustained.

That particular document talks about taking copious notes. Is that your current lab policy for criminalists, to take copious notes?

Hearsay. It is not relevant.

Vague, copious. What is the documentation policy?

As far as crime scenes go?

Yes.

We wish them to record all the information that is necessary to reconstruct or place the evidence items back at the scene.

Do you have any set policy in terms of how extensive their notes should be?

At the current time, no.

Is there anything written in where that tells them how to fill out the form they have?

I don't believe so, no.

And there is no consistency among people in your lab about how they fill out their form, is there?

I would say this is some consistency between people. We--they are trained. They go out, they see how other criminalists operate, and we also want people to have some independence as to how they do their job.

There are people such as Dennis Fung who do not have consistency in their forms in terms of filling out the same blanks on the forms, correct?

Well, it is--

It is argumentative.

Is it a good technique to fill out a form completely?

It is overbroad.

Overruled.

If it is an appropriate form and all the information on there is necessary, I would like it to be filled out, yes.

And it is up to the individual criminalist to decide what information that is asked for on the form happens to be important?

Assumes facts not in evidence, "asked for on the form."

Overruled. We have all seen the forms.

They are in the field going to make decisions, yes, they are going to make individual decisions as to what should be filled out and what shouldn't.

And did you review the crime scene checklist from June 13th from Rockingham and Bundy to determine whether the forms were filled out completely?

I had not seen them prior to them being photocopied and distributed.

So were they reviewed by anybody, to your knowledge?

They have been reviewed many times over the course of the last nine months. They were not reviewed prior to their distribution.

Now, my question was, were those forms filled out completely from your standpoint?

No, they were not.

Were they filled out satisfactorily from your standpoint?

Using the term "satisfactorily" to indicate that they have what I would consider the most important information, such as what evidence items were collected, how to relate them back to numbers and their locations, I would say is a rule that was done satisfactorily. There were parts that were missing.

Now, one of the issues that has come up in this case is the identification of who collected particular stains. You are aware of that, correct?

Yes, I am.

And you are aware that the crime scene checklist, which presumably are the only notes that they prepare when they do their work--is that correct?

Well, they also can use other blank paper or whatever, but that is available to them, yes.

And that those forms were insufficient for Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola to go back and recreate who picked up what stain?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Did you participate in a session with Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola where they tried to reconstruct who did what?

No, I did not.

Are you aware that they had to have such a session?

Irrelevant, argumentative.

Sustained.

To personal knowledge.

It has already been testified to, counsel.

Were you involved in the process at all trying to assist them to reconstruct who collected what?

Asked and answered.

Sustained.

How are those forms inadequate?

Vague as to "those forms" and "inadequate."

Overruled. He has testified that some of the forms were not complete.

What stands out in my mind is the last page which indicates the signature or a place for the person to sign it was not filled in or the date and time leaving the scene.

Now, one of the sections on the form talks about whether the crime scene has been altered. You are aware of that?

Yes, I am.

And there are several lines available on that form to be filled out, correct?

Yes, there is.

It takes up a substantial portion of that particular form, does it not?

Well, it takes up an area of about an inch and a half on an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven page, yes.

And what is the purpose of that part of the form?

I believe, as I testified on direct, that my understanding of the purpose of that is to record any gross information you have regarding potential, you know, major changes that occurred at the scene prior to your arrival, such as an emergency unit that went in to attempt to resuscitate the victim. It is a place to record information that you acquire about alterations that occurred.

Does it say anywhere in this form or any other form that it is limited to changes that are just of a gross nature?

No. I was just testifying to my understanding of what that section means.

Well, what are your people taught about what it means?

Or are they taught?

I don't believe that we have gone--you know, done a teaching session where we go line through line through the form. They learn out in the field with other criminalists how to fill it out, and the people that I have taught in that is exactly what I mentioned just now, if you know of any physical alteration to the scene, to record that there.

Now, gross alterations would include moving bodies before the scene is processed?

I would say that is information that could be included in that.

Now, that information wasn't included in the Bundy crime scene checklist, was it?

Argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Was that information included in the Bundy crime scene checklist in that section that talks about an altered scene?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

No, it was not.

Mr. Matheson, what is the purpose of maintaining a chain of custody for an item of evidence?

My understanding of the purpose of a chain of custody is so that when an item comes into Court you can establish that it is the same item that was collected at the crime scene.

And that is important to establish that it hasn't been tampered with, correct?

Among other things?

Among other things, it would--it would allow you to say that it was--was under control or you would know who had control of it the whole time.

The better the chain of custody, the less the opportunity of tampering?

Argumentative.

An undetected pampering?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Is the proper procedure for a detective to take property home overnight? Evidence, excuse me?

No foundation as to this witness.

Sustained.

Would you recommend that the detective take a reference tube of blood home and put it in his refrigerator overnight?

Not relevant.

Sustained.

What is the procedure required by the Los Angeles Police Department for booking blood vials, of when that should be done?

Vague as to by whom.

Overruled.

I don't know the exact wording of what the current manual says, but it is to be booked as soon as possible for refrigerator storage.

Do you know of any provision that says you can keep it 24 hours?

No, I do not.

Is it important for a criminalist at a crime scene to try to reconstruct the state of the scene at the time of the crime?

Vague as to "reconstruct."

Overruled.

Do you mean by reconstruct to try and determine in exactly what state it was at the time of the crime or--

As close as possible.

My understanding is that it is important that the criminalist be aware of how it is upon their arrival and document that and collect the evidence that is there. Reconstruction can occur after the fact if all the information as to how it was at the time, when they arrived and other information, is supplied.

Is it your policy that a Criminalist's job does not include--let me rephrase that. Is it your position that criminalists don't have the responsibility for trying to establish whether a crime scene has been tampered with from the time of the crime until they get there?

Vague as to "tampered with."

Why don't you rephrase that.

Is it a Criminalist's job to find out if evidence has been moved around by the police before they were called to the scene?

I think it is important for them to record it if they are aware of it, depending particularly on the complexity of a scene, their primary goal is in the documentation and collection of the evidence. If they become aware of the fact that something has been moved, it should be recorded. I would not expect them, particularly in a highly complex scene, to go around and interview everybody to find out if each item was in the same place as it was when it started.

How about talking to the detectives in charge of the scene to see if anything has been changed, anything has been taken away?

Well, I don't think that would be unreasonable.

Is that part of their job?

Part of their job is to get an overall view of what happened at the scene from the detective. It would not be unreasonable for the criminalist to ask if they were aware of something having been altered.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about SID. Do we have that--

Actually, before I do that, yesterday I showed you a couple of textbooks on crime scene investigations, did I not?

Yes, you did.

One of those was "forensic science, an introduction to criminalistics" by Peter De Forest and R. E. Gaensslen and Henry Lee?

Yes. It is Dr. Gaensslen.

Dr. Gaensslen. And you are familiar with this text, are you not?

I have seen it, yes.

Have you read portions of it?

Portions, yes.

Has there been times when you relied on its contents?

Well, I have referenced it, yes.

Do you consider it an authority on crime scene investigations?

Well, having not read it cover to cover or remember everything that it says, I can't say that everything in there is ultimate reference, but I'm sure there are many instances where it is accurate and correct.

Now, you also are familiar with a book by Barry Fisher titled "techniques of crime scene investigation"?

Same thing, I am aware of it.

And have you reviewed on it occasion?

I have looked things up and referenced in it.

And do you consider it an authority on crime scene investigations?

Well, the same as the other one, without having read it to cover to cover, but I'm sure there is quite a bit of information in it that is accurate.

Let me ask you if you agree with the following: "nothing should ever be altered until"--

May I have a page cite?

38.

Gaensslen or De Forest.

De Forest. Page 38 at the bottom.

I don't think that there has been an adequate foundation at this point, your Honor.

Sustained.

Well, let me show him the volume.

And counsel, we are going to take a break at a quarter till the hour.

Mr. Blasier, what is the general topic of this chapter?

"documentation of crime scene and evidence."

Okay.

Have you reviewed that section?

Yes, I have.

Do you agree with its content?

In general, yes.

Do you agree with the statement that with respect to crime scene evidence--

Counsel, still no foundation under 721 that it is considered and relied on.

Sustained.

Have you considered this text and relied upon it in forming your own opinion as to what is a good technique and what is not a good technique in crime scene investigation?

Well, on the fact that I just read it just now and I previously have some opinions regarding good and reliable techniques, I didn't rely on this to come to that opinion.

Do you agree with it, though?

Not relevant.

Do you agree that nothing should be altered?

Counsel, an objection has been made.

Not relevant and still no foundation under 721.

Sustained.

As a general rule do you believe that at a crime scene nothing should be altered until the positions of items have been recorded in detail?

I agree with that if that is possible, yes.

And do you agree that every case should be thoroughly documented?

Documented as well as possible, yes.

Do you agree that thorough documentation is required for a successful reconstruction of a crime scene?

I think it is important, yes.

Do you believe that written notes are indispensable in any investigation?

It is vague as to "indispensable."

Overruled.

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Written notes are definitely a part of a successful investigation.

Do you believe that notes should not--I'm sorry--should be made in ink?

I have been of a custom myself many times to do it in pencil. It makes particularly doing sketches and things easier to correct when you are in the field. From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't matter or from a recording of the information it doesn't matter whether it is in ink or pencil. When we come to this point here as far as worrying about whether or not something might have been altered or changed by somebody, then ink would be better.

And you understand that ASCLAD requires, before a lab can be accredited, that they do everything in ink?

I would have to review that section.

Your Honor, I will object to any questions about what ASCLAD requires as not being relevant.

The answer--question and answer will stand.

I don't know why counsel is showing this to the witness.

Refresh his memory.

Do you want to ask the foundational questions.

Would it refresh your memory to look at the ASCLAD manual for accreditation?

And I would object that it is not relevant and it is also vague to refresh memory as to what.

Overruled.

As far as the question you asked before regarding the in ink situation?

Yes, regarding whether to be accredited by this organization you are required to use ink and not pencil?

It is irrelevant, your Honor, what they require.

Overruled.

Yeah. Like I mentioned, I would have to review it to be able to see if that is what they say.

Well, I object to the witness' last comment, he testified that he would have to read it to refresh his recollection. Motion to strike.

Overruled. Why don't you read it do yourself?

It does make reference here to--

No. Mr. Matheson, does that refresh your recollection as to the accreditation requirements set forth by ASCLAD?

In that section, yes.

All right.

Do you know of any noted authority or author in the field of crime scene investigations that takes the position that pencil is acceptable for crime scene notes?

No, I do not.

Take a break.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess at this time for fifteen minutes. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And Mr. Matheson, you may step down. We will reconvene at eleven o'clock.