All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. And, Mr. Matheson, you are reminded again you are still under oath, sir. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Matheson, before the break, we were talking about the desirability of having criminalist notes in ink. Do you recall that?

Yes.

And it's also desirable, is it not, to have their notes in a bound volume rather than a loose-leaf volume, correct?

Misstates the evidence, it's also desirable, objection, prior question.

Rephrase the question.

Is it also considered desirable by most authorities in the field to have work notes, field notes in a bound volume rather than looseleaf?

Same objection to the word "also."

Sustained. Is it desirable to your knowledge?

I know that that is one technique. I don't believe that's a universal technique.

Do you think it's a desirable technique?

I don't believe it's necessary, no.

Now, the reason for that technique is to avoid the possibility of pages being substituted without being detected, correct?

That is one reason doing it in a bound notebook, yes.

And if you keep looseleaf volumes, pages can be moved around and you'll never know the--or you may never know the difference unless you look at things like staple holes, correct?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Do you agree that it's a desirable practice for criminalists to have all of their pages numbered consecutively?

I'm not sure that's--that's necessary.

You understand that that's recommended by a number of authors in the field?

I know I've read it in one author in the text that you just showed me.

And you don't require that in your lab, do you?

No, we do not.

Do you think it's desirable that when errors are made in reports, that they should be corrected by--not by eraser, but by lining out the error, initialing it and writing the correction?

Overbroad as to reports as opposed to notes.

Overruled. Overruled.

I was going to say, in relation to reports, reports that are submitted, in that most of our reports are handwritten as opposed to computer generated, if a change is made to an analysis report, I would expect it to be just lined through and initialed. When it comes to field notes, I don't necessarily agree with that.

You don't agree that as a safeguard, the same principal should be applied to field notes?

Vague and argumentative as to "safeguard."

Sustained.

Are field notes just as important as reports in your view?

They are important. They serve a different function.

And is it just as important that field notes not have the appearance of being tampered with as reports?

Argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is it just as important that the integrity of field notes be maintained as well as the integrity of reports?

Overbroad and vague as to integrity.

Overruled.

If you mean by integrity that every little mark on them that's put out in the field be exactly the same as always, I'm not sure I agree with that. Field notes are just that. They're observations that are made in the field while you're doing it or your sketches. Many times, I have, in the process of making a sketch, erased things to reline walls or something along that line.

Do you feel that it is preferable that criminalists not throw away pages of their notes?

Vague as to preferable.

Overruled.

Yes.

Do you have a rule for your criminalists that they are not to destroy any of their original notes?

We don't currently have a written policy for that.

Is that policy even though it's not written?

We advise people to retain originals, yes.

Well, is it just something that they can do or cannot do or is it a policy, that you want them not to throw away their notes?

It's vague as to policy.

Overruled.

Actually that is my question. When it comes to policy, it is something that we advise them, that we want them to retain all their original items. If we were to be made aware that it was thrown away, we would advise them that that's not the proper thing to do.

Do you have the authority to set a policy for your lab?

Yes.

As a supervisor?

Well, not as a supervisor. As a manager working with the lab director and the captain, we set policy, yes.

You don't have to go through any other body to set policy for the people that work for you; is that correct?

That's correct.

Now, you indicated that you're also familiar with the Barry Fisher text, correct?

I have seen it, yes.

And who is Barry Fisher?

He's currently the lab director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department criminalistics laboratory.

And he's published this book, correct?

My understanding, yes.

And it's not unusual for people who do casework in labs to also do research and publish articles, is it?

No, not at all.

It's not unusual for them to also publish books?

That's correct.

And the reason that you don't publish any of your work is because you choose not to?

That's correct. I have not published.

You have no interest in getting involved in research or putting your work into print for publication?

That's not my main interest, no.

Now, let me show you a portion of this--

Referring to page 42.

Which volume?

Fisher.

Do you have a volume?

Yeah.

I'm sorry. Which page?

42.

Now, let me ask you to review on page 43 starting here (Indicating).

So far, there's no foundation for him to do that.

He's asking him to review it. I assume they'll be some foundational questions under 721.

What's the topic of this paragraph, Mr. Blasier?

Essentially thoroughness of crime scene investigation.

All right.

Have you reviewed that section before?

I don't specifically remember if I read that before.

Do you agree with what you read?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

In ideal conditions, yes. That is a goal to obtain.

Now, do you agree that in ideal conditions as a goal to obtain--

Sustained. 721, counsel.

I am sorry?

Foundation is missing. It's hearsay at this point.

I'm asking him just a general question.

You're referring to the item though, counsel.

Have you relied on this portion of this text before?

No, I have not.

Do you agree that it's extremely important to be overly thorough at a crime scene rather than less thorough in terms of not collecting items that might later have some value?

Yes, I do.

It's very important that you not make judgments at a crime scene that limit what you might collect, correct?

Vague. Overbroad.

Overruled.

That's correct.

The desire is to collect too much rather than too little, correct?

The desire is to correct just--collect just the right amount of things, but to error towards too much would be better than too little.

Would you agree that particularly in a complex crime scene, you're not going to be able to figure out everything that might be relevant just by looking at one crime scene?

I would say that's true.

And so as a general principal, are your criminalists trained to collect more rather than less; in other words, to collect things that maybe don't have any relevance as they just look at them, but just to be safe because they might become relevant in the future, collect it?

They are taught to error towards collecting too much, yes.

Is there any limitation on laboratory space such that they are limited in how much evidence they can collect at a crime scene?

Not in any individual crime scene, no.

So that shouldn't be a consideration that they use in deciding what to collect and what not to collect, should it?

Well, at some point, you're going to have to make a decision. Obviously it would be nice to be able to collect, to use maybe as an absurd example, a home that was the scene of a crime. Theoretically, if you collected the whole house, then you have then preserved absolutely everything that's in it. That would be taking it to the extreme, and of course, we don't have space for that. But I do not want a criminalist going out there and saying, "well, I'm not going to pick up this seat cushion or remove this mattress because it's a large item to book."

Blood stains don't take a whole lot of room to collect, do they?

No, they don't.

Now, the--presumably, the police will keep a crime scene open for as long as your people need to process it, correct?

Yes.

So time limitations should not be a factor that hampers your criminalists' ability to collect evidence, correct?

Not time as it comes to our access to the scene, that's correct.

As a hypothetical, if you had a crime scene such as the Bundy scene where there are two victims and a possibly bleeding perpetrator in a very small area, would you agree that given those facts, you would want to collect as much evidence as possible from the immediate area of the crime scene to try and sort out what happened?

Vague and overbroad.

Sustained.

Would--in a crime scene such as I've described, would it be your approach to that crime scene that since there's a lot of blood, "let's not collect any of it because we're probably not going to be able to sort out whose it is"?

Still vague and overbroad.

Overruled.

If I understood that right, you're saying not to collect any just because there's so much there?

Or to collect less because there's so much there.

Well, I would make some decision as to what I thought were the appropriate items to collect. I wouldn't just ignore it, no.

Wouldn't you make every effort to find out, if you could, the source of any particular bloodstain?

Overbroad as to any particular bloodstain.

Overruled.

It's a process of looking at the whole scene. Obviously if I see an area that appears to be a continuation of a blood pool or running or something like that from the victim, I would want to collect one sample like I mentioned before and I would not then collect bits and pieces from all parts of it. However, if I saw a stain that was separate from the crime, immediate crime scene or something that appeared to be out of place, I would definitely want to collect that one.

Now I would like to ask you some questions about security at SID.

Your Honor, if we could use the LAPD scientific investigation slide to start.

Yes.

Now, Mr. Matheson, you can see the slide on the monitor?

Yes, I can.

And that's a picture of a floor plan that appears in the lobby of your lab, correct?

Yes. It's a floor plan there as part of the fire alarm system.

And that's from--it's from that diagram that the Prosecution's diagram that they brought in here was made, correct? Is that your understanding?

I don't know if it's specifically from that one, but it is similar to it, yes.

Okay.

Mr. Blasier, how do you want to mark these?

This will--we are able to print this all out, and could we have a number for our complete exhibit?

1127.

I'm sorry?

1127.

All right. Let's make this 1127-A through whatever.

Okay.

All right. The series.

This would be B there. I'm sorry. Yeah. This would be B. We have C?

Now, in the area indicated on the diagram is the area of the evidence processing room. Actually it's up in the upper right-hand corner of that black box, correct?

If you look at the diagram, the actual evidence processing--there's a heavy black box that actually encompasses the evidence processing room, our stock room and a couple of office areas. The actual evidence processing room is just the smaller square in the upper right-hand corner of that.

Now, there's an indication of a door on the right side of the evidence processing room, correct?

Yes.

And that's a door that--actually it's almost like a garage door that rolls up?

That's correct. It's like an industrial roll-up metal door.

And that's the largest door in this building to the outside world; is it not?

I don't believe it is in the building. It's one of two large doors from our facility that goes outside of the facility.

Next slide. This is slide D--D. D? D.

Now, indicated on this diagram is the highlighted area which is the evidence control unit, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Go to slide E.

I'm going to remove the background from that and talk about the evidence processing room first. Now, is it accurate to say when evidence is in this particular room, it hasn't been booked yet?

That's correct.

And there's a bar coding system for boxes that contain exhibits within LAPD, correct?

Well, there's a bar coding system for boxes and packages within our division, not within the whole department.

And when items of evidence are in the evidence processing room, they're not--initially before they've been booked, they have not been entered into the computer system, correct?

That's correct.

Now I'm going to talk about the evidence control unit. Now, once evidence is moved to the evidence control unit is when it is entered into the LAPD computer system for tracking; is that correct?

When it's booked in, it is, that's correct.

And that's known as the sets, s-e-t, system? That's one system?

The set--I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. That's one system?

Yes. The sets--what we refer to as sets system is the scientific investigation division's evidence tracking system.

And that's a special system that you have set up or LAPD has set up to track items that are being or in the process of being examined or held by SID?

Well, it doesn't track items. It tracks packages of items. It could be a single item if there's only one in there, or if it's a large box that has 20 or 30 items in it, it will track the box.

Now, items that are in the evidence control unit, by the time they get there, they are also entered into a system called APIMS, correct, a-p-I-m-s?

My understanding, at some point, they get entered into that system.

And it is also correct, is it not, that the evidence control unit has a higher level of security than the evidence processing room?

When you mean higher level of security, I'm assuming you mean a fewer number of people have access to it?

Yes.

That is a fact, yes.

And you're required to log in and out of that room individually, correct?

Or you use your--or access card, that's correct.

Now, when I say individually, it's accurate, is it not, that getting in and out of the evidence control unit is more limited than it is getting into the evidence processing room?

More limited in the number of people that can go in, yes.

But you also can--you're not allowed in the evidence control room to walk in with somebody who has a badge to get in without also putting your id card in the computer system, correct?

People are supposed to card in and out, yes, individually.

Is it your understanding that as a practice, they don't?

That's not my understanding, no. I would assume that it does happen sometimes.

So that--

Motion to strike the witness' last answer as speculation.

Overruled.

So the appropriate procedure is, if there were two people who were authorized to be in the evidence control unit, they'd both have to in essence log in and out of that room by putting their id card up on the wall by the door?

They're supposed to show their card to the reader, yes.

Whereas in the evidence processing room, one person can get into the room with the card and if there are three or four other people with that person, each one is not required to log in, correct?

That's correct.

Now, there is an additional level of security within the evidence control unit; is there not?

In the--if you're referring to there's additional locked areas, yes.

And--

If we can go to the next slide. And the next.

Now, there is an area within the evidence control unit where certain cases are kept separately from other cases within the evidence control unit, correct?

Well, my knowledge of those particular locker is that it's only been used in one particular case. Beyond that, I have no individual knowledge of it.

It was used in this particular case, correct?

Yes.

And the only people that have access to the evidence control unit are authorized police officials or people that are in there with their permission, correct?

I'm not sure what you mean by police officials. The people that have access to it, the employees that work in that area can get into it and they can allow other people that are authorized by them to enter the area.

And the reason that cases or this case, the evidence from this case is kept in those lockers is to proceed an additional level of security so that police officers or others who have access to the evidence control unit cannot get to it?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled.

As to all evidence.

Overruled.

It provides just one little bit more or one little--excuse me--greater level of security for the shelf storage items in this case that are placed in that locker.

And it's to keep it secure from police officers, correct?

It also is to keep it secure from anybody that doesn't have access to the key.

Uh-huh. Now, the card that's used to get in and out of the lab, anybody who act--who possesses that card can get into the lab, correct? Let me narrow that down a little bit. At night let's say, is there a guard on duty at the lab?

No, there is not.

So if someone wanted to come into the lab at night and had the card, there is no method for any kind of identification of that person visually?

That's correct.

And there is no method for leaving a fingerprint or some other means of uniquely identifying a person other than just having this card, correct?

Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

Overruled.

The--if a person has access to that door that time of day, the computer records the code number on that card, but it does nothing else beyond that as far as saying that--I mean, it doesn't know that that's the person that is carrying it.

Right.

It records the card information.

Now, how many people have cards that provide access to the lab itself, the overall lab?

I believe currently we have probably between, oh, 75 and 90 people I believe that have cards.

And does that include--well, tell me who that includes just in general categories.

Well, it includes criminalists, it includes our property officers, other support personnel that work within our laboratory, our student workers, our--excuse me--our clerical staff, the administration and our couriers.

Now, it includes the management personnel of the lab, correct?

That's correct.

And you have one?

Yes.

Michele Kestler has one?

Yes.

And are there any other--the Captain of the Police Department that's in charge of the lab has one I assume?

That's correct. His office is inside of that facility.

Do any other higher police officials have cards that allow access to the lab in general?

At the current time, I don't believe so. One point, we had one issued to a commander, but the person currently in that position chose not to take one.

Now, would it be accurate to say that of the three areas we've talked about, the lockers which I titled sensitive case lockers, the evidence control unit and the evidence processing room, the evidence processing room is the least secure facility of those three?

If you mean by least secured, that more people have access to it, then yes, that's accurate.

It's also the most accessible from the outside through that big door that opens up, correct?

Well, it's as--it's as accessible as our stockroom is which also has one of those doors nearby.

Now--and the stockroom area is right next to the evidence processing room, correct?

Yes.

And there is a refrigerator in that stockroom; is there not?

Yes, there is a refrigerator freezer.

And that refrigerator is available for criminalists to store biological evidence that might be kept in the evidence processing room, correct?

It's available for them to use that, yes.

Can we go to the next slide please?

And which item is this alphabetically?

L.

Appears to be a photograph.

Mr. Matheson, this is a photograph of the evidence processing room; is it not?

Yes, it is.

And there are things in the back there that look a little like ovens I guess. I--what are those?

Those are hoods, what are called hoods. It's an area where air is drawn out of and inducted to the outside.

And what's the purpose of those areas?

It's not really relevant.

Overruled.

Those are available for criminalists if they bring large bloody items or smelly items to hang in that area so that they can dry out and that the fumes and the hazards associated with that are taken to the outside rather than being allowed to circulate within the laboratory.

Now, clothing, bloody clothing is required to be dried thoroughly before it is packaged, correct?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Yes.

And what can happen if it's not allowed to dry thoroughly and then it's packaged?

Well, if it's packaged while it's still damp, you have the possibility for degradation of the biological evidence.

Can also cause mold to grow, can't it?

Well, sure. If you have dampness in there, that's one of the things that will occur.

Now, the shirt that--I believe you were asked some questions about Mr. Goldman's shirt on direct. Do you recall that?

Yes, I do.

And that was collected by the Coroner's office, was it not, originally?

That's my understanding, yes.

And when was the first time approximately that you examined that shirt. The best of your recollection?

Probably sometime in July or August. I'm not sure.

And is it accurate that the first time you opened up the package that contained that shirt, there was a very strong odor of mold?

And that's an indication that it was not packaged properly, isn't it?

It's an indication that it was damp, it was allowed to stay damp for a while.

That it was not packaged properly, correct?

That it was not stored properly, yeah.

Next slide. Could we go back to the last one, please?

The area at the end that we've been talking about or--I think you said they were hoods?

Yes.

And it's actually--I believe it's almost a walk-in area, isn't it? You can climb in there and--

Yeah. The sashes--the area actually goes all the way to the ground. The sashes allow you to--to lift them up and actually roll something into it if you like.

What type of a hood is that? There are different types of hoods, aren't there?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

I'm not sure what you mean by what type of hood.

Do you know what a laminar flow hood is?

Roughly, yes.

What's your understanding of what a laminar flow hood is?

My understanding of a laminar flow is something that--where you have air pulled across the surface and then removed. We have laminar flow in the lab.

In what room?

In most of the laboratories.

In the serology lab?

Yes.

And the doors on that hood close; do they not?

You can close it off, yes, by pulling the sashes down.

So you can put items that may be wet with blood in there, close the hood, turn on the ventilation system to allow them to dry, correctly--correct?

Well, the hoods are there for hanging things up to dry, but you don't turn it on. They're constantly running.

But the reason they're running and when you put items in there is to facilitate the drying process?

To facilitate the drying process along with, like I mentioned, the removal of odors.

And isn't one of the purposes also to prevent--to have the doors closed, to prevent any contamination of items that might be outside that hood with particles of blood or other biological material that might be on that clothing?

This is irrelevant.

Was there anything put in the hood to your knowledge with regard to this case?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Let's proceed.

Now, Mr. Matheson, you indicated in your notes that on the--I believe on the morning of June 14th, there were two other cases being processed in the evidence processing room at the same time the Simpson case evidence was being processed, correct?

That's in my notes?

Yes.

I would want to refer to it.

Why don't you take a look.

Yes. That is a reference on what is l-507 of a chronology that I made dated 6-14-94. I mentioned that two other cases with evidence present in evidence processing room.

And is it fair to assume that those two other cases had biological evidence as well?

I'm not sure that we can assume that, no.

Now, why did you make that notation?

Just to try and be as complete as possible.

But you made the notation without writing down what kinds of cases that involved?

That's correct.

And so we have no way of reconstructing at this point in time what kind of other evidence from other cases, including potential biological materials, might have been in that room at the same time as the evidence in this case?

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

No, that's not necessarily true.

You could determine that?

It's possible, yes.

But you did not consider it important enough to put in your notes at the time you made that notation?

No.

Next slide, please. Now, this slide is--

Is this m?

M.

This is a picture of the evidence processing room from the other side, correct?

That's correct.

And that roll-up door there is the one we've been talking about that is the door that goes to the outside?

That's correct.

Now, do you recall in August of last year, I believe it was the 26th or around that time, there was a visit to the lab by a number of Defense experts and attorneys?

I'm not sure of the exact date, but yes, there was a visit where we gave a tour of the facility.

And do you recall whether or not that roll-up door was open at the time that tour was done?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

No, I do not.

Could we go to the next slide, please?

Now, I'm going to blow up a little area backed by Mr. Scheck's head, which is the cabinet where the evidence in this case, the swatch evidence, was dried, correct?

Yes.

All right. This is n? All right. Mr. Blasier, you need to tell us for the record which one we're referring to.

Okay. I'm trying to convert the numbers to letters, Judge, and I've having some trouble.

All right.

N. Could we have o?

Now, this is a better picture of that cabinet, correct?

It's a picture of the doors open, yes.

Now, that cabinet does not have any lock on it at all, does it?

No, it does not.

And when it's used for drying biological stains, does it have those other items in it as well that are in this picture?

Yes.

And are there chemicals kept in that cabinet at the same time that biological evidence is in there drying?

Yes, there is.

What sorts of chemicals are in there?

They are the chemicals that we use for our field testing, the phenolphtalein test that's been talked about. If there's anything else, I'm not sure what it is.

Now, the evidence in this case that was collected at the Bundy scene and the Rockingham scene on the 13th was taken to the evidence processing room, correct?

Yes, it was.

It was not taken for booking right away, was it?

It was taken for booking right away. It was not booked right away.

And it was kept in the evidence processing room for how many days before it was moved to some other location?

No personal knowledge.

If you know.

I would want to refer to a property report or something to be sure.

Go ahead.

I don't have the property reports with me.

Do you know which date the first item of evidence in this case was actually booked in the evidence control unit?

It was either the--June 15th or June 16th.

Well, no personal knowledge. Motion to strike.

Overruled.

Do your notes show, your chron notes show when that happened?

I have a notation in my chronology for June 16th, 1994 of approximately 1200, Fung books evidence.

Now, is it your understanding of the proper procedure for booking items, that a delay of three days is acceptable or not acceptable?

And one of the reasons it's longer than what you would like is because it's in that evidence control or evidence processing room which of the facilities we talked about is the least secure?

No, that is not one of the reasons.

That's not of any concern of yours at all?

No, it isn't, not as far as security of the evidence goes.

So there are no additional precautions other than what you've described in terms of the way you get in and out of there in that room designed to protect evidence in that room from tampering?

No. Our business is evidence. There's always evidence in that room.

And that evidence when it's in that room before it's been booked is not logged in in any computer record anywhere, is it?

No, it is not.

Is it logged in anywhere at any formal document?

As it's in there, no. It's in there pending that logging process occurring, the production of a property report.

So there is no repository of information that you could go to for instance on the 15th to find out what evidence relating to this case was in that room?

Not specifically for the 15th. We would have to look at what was purported to be of taken in there on the first day and then what was booked at the time it was booked.

Now, is it accurate that the evidence from the Rockingham scene, the Bundy scene from the 13th and the Bronco search from the 14th was all kept together in that room until the 16th?

They were all kept in that room, yes.

Now, when something gets entered into the computer in the sets system, that's a tracking program as you described before, correct?

Yes.

And even with that program, individual items are not individually marked, are they?

Not within that--not as far as the bar code goes, no. Tracks packages.

So the only thing as far as the bar code is concerned that is tracked is a container which purportedly contains certain pieces of evidence?

This has been asked and answered.

It has.

Of this witness?

When we went through the slide.

Is there any computerized system that tracks individual items of evidence?

I believe the APIMS system does, but I don't have any direct involvement with that.

Now, you described how to find items that are in the evidence control unit after they've been booked. You remember that?

Yes, I do.

And those items that are in that room are stored--appears that they're stored at random, correct?

Usually they are, yes.

But all you need to know is the DR number and the item number to find something, correct?

You have to have the DR number, the item number and you need to know how to access the computer, yes.

And that information certainly is available to all police officers that have worked on the case, correct? That's not secret information?

As far as the--

Overly broad as to the information.

Overruled.

As far as the DR number and the item number, that's correct. I would be very surprised if any of the officers associated with this case know how to operate our tracking computer.

Now, were you listening to Dennis Fung's testimony when he was asked about why there was such a delay for booking these items from the 13th to the 16th?

Argumentative as to such a delay. Misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Why there was a three-day delay that you have said is undesirable between those items being in the evidence processing room--

Rephrase the question. Did you hear Mr. Fung's testimony about the period of time between the time the evidence was taken into custody and then finally booked? Are you aware of his testimony regarding those items?

I'm aware that he gave testimony on that. I don't know of his specific wording of it.

Proceed.

Is it accurate that the reason those items were not booked until the 16th is because he hadn't done his reports?

Well, calls for speculation. No personal knowledge.

Do you know? Do you know why the time period?

I have my opinion as to why it took that long.

You were in charge of the items, weren't you?

Not directly in charge of the items, no.

You were in charge of the people that were working on the items, weren't you?

Yes.

And as part of that responsibility, did you assume that that included tracking that evidence to make sure that it was handled properly?

Vague as to tracking.

Overruled.

Well, ultimately, yes. I'm going to keep track of how the things are done and whether the processes are occurring.

Did you at any time intervene between the 13th and the 16th and tell whoever was working on the evidence, "hey, guys, we should get this booked and into the system right away"?

Now, at the Bundy scene on the 13th, there were only approximately 19 items seized, correct?

I don't know the exact number.

It wasn't a large number, was it?

No, it wasn't extremely large.

And at the Rockingham scene, there were an equally--about the same number, I think it was 21 collected on the 13th, correct?

That sounds approximately accurate.

It was not a large number of items?

Not overly large, no.

Now, does it take a long period of time for the person responsible to prepare the reports that describe those items--well, let me rephrase that. The form that's used to enter those items into property is not a terribly complicated form, is it?

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Are we talking about a property report form?

Yeah.

The form itself is not complicated, no.

And would you agree that it's not terribly time-consuming to fill out one of those reports to catalog 19 items?

I'm not sure what you mean by terribly time-consuming. It does take a while. Just writing the words on the paper doesn't take very long, but that's not the only part of the process.

In your opinion, is not having enough time to write the reports an adequate excuse for not getting those items booked until the 16th?

Calls for opinion, conclusion, argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

In your opinion, is it acceptable as the manager of the lab that items not get to booking for the reason that the criminalist has not filled out the reports?

Calls for speculation, conjecture.

Overruled.

Well, just--just the function of not filling out the report in and of itself would not be acceptable. I would want to know why the report was not filled out.

You are aware, are you not, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola at no time counted the number of swatches that they collected for each individual blood drop?

That's my understanding, yes.

And so that there is no way of telling how many swatches they picked up from the ground and took back to the evidence processing room?

Argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is there any way to tell how many swatches were picked up on the 13th from the Bundy scene or the Rockingham scene and taken back to the lab?

No, there is not.

In your opinion, is that an acceptable procedure for collecting swatches; to not track how many you collect?

Yes.

That's acceptable?

Yes.

Is that your practice?

To not count the number?

Yes.

Didn't used to be.

It didn't used to be?

No. I never used to count the number of swatches. It obviously became an issue in this case, and in the future and in an interest just to be able to answer that, I have tended to record them. But no, I don't think it's vital information.

To me, as far as when you're collecting them, the number of swatches you use to pick up a particular stain is not of particular importance. It's described when the criminalist receives the item for analysis, say serology or something like that, and that has to do with how much evidence is available for testing at that point. But as far as just collecting it and recording I don't think that's a terribly important piece of information.

And would you agree that because that information is not kept, that swatches could disappear or be taken and there would be no way of checking that?

Argumentative. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Now, you booked into evidence items from the Bronco as a result of the stains that you removed on September 1st that you testified about, correct?

That's correct.

And you booked in approximately seven or eight different items?

I'd have to look at my report. It was not a large number.

Let me show you--

Let me show you a property report for a number of items. Take a look at that yourself.

Okay.

And that's a property report--perhaps just a partial report listing the items that you collected on September 1st, correct?

Yes, it is.

And for every single item on that list, you specify the number of swatches that you collected, correct?

That's correct.

Had that become an issue in this case as of September 1st when you did this?

I believe it had.

And it's only in response to it being raised as an issue in this case that you now have a practice of counting swatches?

That's correct.

Have you passed that on to the people that work for you? Is that now a policy, SID, for people to count swatches?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

There is actually two questions there. No, it is not a policy and yes, we have suggested that something people do.

So it's just kind of, you can do it if you want to?

At this point, the fact that we do not have a manual that establishes our field policies where all this is laid out, we are recommending certain procedures to people.

But you had the ability to set a policy, don't you? You said that before.

Argumentative.

I think we've covered this counsel.

The actual property report itself has a column that asks for quantity of an item, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

And this is an official report required by the Los Angeles Police Department, correct?

Yes. It's a generic property report.

And it's your understanding that the police department requires that you fill in the quantity of items that are collected?

It's vague, overbroad as to items.

I think we've covered this, counsel.

Well, I don't think there's been testimony about the police department.

The form is there. It has the number of items. It wasn't filled out on many of these things. That's been established. Let's proceed.

Now, you've been asked about the search of the Bronco on August 26th, 1994, correct?

Yes, I have I believe.

And I believe exhibit 200 is the checklist; is that correct, Ms. Robertson?

Yes, it is.

I have a copy of it.

I don't think it was 200.

Mr. Blasier, the vehicle search notes?

Yes. I would like to place on the elmo the last page of this.

Certainly. Did we confirm the exhibit number?

Yes.

Does this appear to be the item list for evidence items collected as a result of that search?

Yes, it does.

Would you agree that virtually every blank on that form has been filled in?

Yes, that's correct.

And the time collected for each individual item has been filled in to the minute; has it not?

Appears to be, yes.

And the identification of the person collecting the item is filled in for every item, isn't it?

Yes.

In your view, is this the proper way that these forms should be filled out?

Assumes facts not in evidence, there's only one proper way.

Overruled.

I don't feel it's necessary for all of the evidence items to have their time down to the minute. Like I testified before, I tend to bracket items from when the original one was picked up until the last one.

I think you testified on direct as to this particular form that some of your people don't even understand what the--I believe it was the id photo column means. Remember that?

Misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Am I misrecollecting that? There's one column on here that you indicated your people don't even know what it means, there's disagreement?

Misstates the testimony.

Why don't you rephrase the question.

Do you remember testifying yesterday about part of this form that has been inconsistently interpreted as to what it means by your own people?

Well, first off, I'm not sure it was part of this form. If you'll notice, this one is slightly different than the one--because we have a couple of different forms when it comes to evidence collection. I would want to check that one to make sure exactly which one it is. But there was a column that we talked about regarding any inconsistency as to how that was interpreted.

Now, on this particular search, Michelle Kestler and a criminalist by the name of Maurocoubo I believe--you'll have to correct my pronunciation on that--Mostrocovo?

Mastrocovo, yes.

Mastrocovo. Worked on this particular search, correct?

And I believe there was also Mr. Raquel was involved in that.

And they have indicated individually--now, they were working as a team; were they not?

Yes, they were.

And on that form, they indicated which particular person collected which particular items, correct?

Yes, they did.

Now, did I understand your direct testimony to be that if you have two people working as a team, it's less important for them to identify who actually picks up an item from the ground?

I think I would want to see exactly what I said on that. I--

Let me ask you that. If you have two people working as a team, do you think it's less important than if you had just one person processing a scene for them to keep track of who actually picks the item up off the ground?

Well, obviously if only one person is involved in it from beginning to end, then all the notations would be the same. I wouldn't expect you to have to fill in each one. As far as both people, it's information that would be nice to know. Whether it's vital or not, I don't believe so.

But it becomes more important where you have two people working as a team obviously than if you had one person working alone, correct?

Well, it's more important because with one person, it's obvious who did it.

Do you know of any police agency that has as a procedure--let me rephrase that. Do you know of any police agency that allows or that does not require people who physically collect an item to identify it and initial it with their initials?

No foundation.

Overruled.

No, I do not.

That's a standard police procedure, is it not; that the person who picks it up is the person who initials it? That establishes the chain of custody, correct?

Initials it is vague.

Overruled.

Part of the procedures in criminalistics is to initial or identify an item that's collected.

It is not satisfactory to have somebody else who might have been thinking about collecting the item initial it rather than the person who collects it, is it?

If we're--it would be nice if the person that was involved in it did initial that item and did mark and be involved in it. But it is also a situation where--and we're talking about the collection process--where if two people are involved and two people see what's going on, that that information becomes less important.

So it's your opinion that it's just nice to have that information, not essential that you have it?

If two people are working together on it and they're there collecting them together, I don't believe that it's essential, but it would be nice to have that information there, yes.

Now, if some question was raised down the line about possibly tampering with a particular item, wouldn't you want to know who picked it up off the ground?

Argumentative. No evidence to support it.

Sustained.

Isn't that an important piece of information for chain of custody?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

As to who collected it?

Yes.

It's part of the process.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1 o'clock. Mr. Matheson, 1 o'clock.