Thank you, your Honor. Good evening--good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the socks, item no. 13. Now, would you agree that of the items collected at Rockingham this was obviously a very significant piece of evidence?

Calls for speculation, conclusion.

Overruled.

Yes, it was.

And when did you first become aware that a pair of socks had been found at the foot of Mr. Simpson's bed?

It was probably when--upon doing the inventory on June 29th.

That is the first time you became aware of the socks?

That is the first moment that sticks in my mind, yes.

Didn't you have a meeting on the 14th where you discussed the evidence that had been obtained on the 13th with Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola and others at the lab?

We discussed some of the items, yes.

And no one discussed the socks?

Not to my knowledge. At that point I believe our focus was mainly on the items picked up at the Bundy scene and the glove from Rockingham.

Now, you had--before the 29th you had a number of meetings, did you not, with Miss Clark, and other people at the lab, about the items that were collected on the 13th, did you not?

I've had many meetings with the D.A.'s office in association with this case. Yes, I did.

Before the 29th?

Not relevant, your Honor.

Overruled.

I did meet with them at time and I'm sure we talked about evidence, but I don't specifically remember discussing regarding the socks.

Do you want to refer to your chron notes in terms of--let me ask you this: You had a meeting with Detective Vannatter on the 15th to discuss what evidence should be examined and tested, did you not?

Can I refer to my notes?

Sure.

We did have a discussion regarding what additional items we wanted to start analyzing.

And that was in the morning of the 15th, correct?

Yes, sometime in the A.M.

And it is your recollection that the socks were never mentioned?

Not relevant, your Honor.

Overruled.

I don't specifically remember whether they were mentioned. They were not one of the items chosen to continue work on.

Did you at any time on your own make an effort to review what items had actually been collected at Rockingham on the 13th?

From beginning to end all the items, no, I don't believe so.

And you didn't have Fung's notes available to you, correct?

Well, on the 13th I don't believe they were even back at the laboratory by the type I left.

On the 14th?

We did look at a number of items, mainly at blood swatches and that type of thing and the gloves.

Where were the socks when you were looking at items? Do you have any idea?

I would have to assume they were somewhere in the evidence processing room.

And you are assuming that because there is no record that shows where they were, correct?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Is there a record that shows where they were?

As mentioned earlier, no, other than what they say they took into the room and what was eventually booked.

Now, there were approximately 19 times or 21 items seized at Rockingham on the 13th. Who made the decision as to which items you guys would talk about on the 14th?

Irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct and also--

Overruled.

--unintelligible.

Overruled.

At--on that date--I mean, it is very possible that the socks came up. It is not sticking in my mind because we didn't choose to do anything with it at the time. We were dealing with things that we knew at that point had blood on them, such as the stains and the gloves.

Did you know at that time that the search warrant that had been executed at Rockingham in the afternoon of the 13th, that the primary thing that was being searched for was bloody clothing?

Assumes facts not in evidence, no personal knowledge.

Overruled. Did you know that?

Did you know that?

I subsequently heard that. I didn't know that at the time.

Now, you had a meeting with Marcia Clark in the afternoon on the 15th, correct?

Referring again to my chronology notes. My notes reflect, "work in progress DDA. Marcia Clark confirm desire to submit evidence to RFLP without further conventional work." I--well, that's correct. That was in Commander White's office, yes, she was present.

Who else was present?

There was a large number of people in that room.

And the purpose for that meeting was to discuss what evidence was collected and what you should do with it, correct?

No, I don't believe we got into a lot of technical discussion at that point. I believe this involved some of the detectives and other people. I think we talked about the crime scene in general.

Were there other meetings between the 15th and the 20th, the day of the Grand Jury hearing, about the evidence that had been seized in this case?

May I refer again--look through my notes, my chronology, and see if it reminds me of anything.

I don't have any notations of any additional meetings that were held regarding specific discussions of the evidence.

Do you remember there being a lot of meetings around this time about this case?

I recall talking on the phone quite a bit with people about the case and meeting with criminalists and the like.

Now, on June 20th you were at the Grand Jury waiting to testify from 7:45 in the morning until 10:15 in the morning, correct?

Not relevant, your Honor.

Overruled.

Yes, I was.

And you were there with Dennis Fung and Detective Vannatter waiting, correct?

Along with Mr. Yamauchi and Detective Lange, yes.

The record should reflect that the witness looked at his notes before answering.

Yes.

Did you have any discussion about what the evidence was in the case?

I don't particularly remember what we talked about.

Did the subject of the socks come up then?

I don't know.

By the way, Andrea Mazzola was not at the Grand Jury hearing, was she?

Irrelevant.

Sustained.

Did you participate in any discussions regarding the role that Andrea Mazzola would play in the Grand Jury hearing?

Sustained.

On the 21st at 11:15 you had a meeting with Michele Kestler and Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi to discuss the evidence, did you not?

According to my chronology, yes, that's correct.

Did you discuss the socks at all?

Just by--

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Just by looking at this, I don't remember.

Now, when the property was--they started to book the property on the 16th. Did you follow that in any way to determine what items were being booked?

That is the first date on the various computer systems used to track items, correct, and track packages?

Yes.

For any item?

I believe so. I know that is true of the item that came out of the laboratory.

Are you aware of the socks even being photographed at SID after they were collected before they were booked?

No, I'm not.

Now, was it June 29th was the first time that you looked at the socks?

That is the first time I remember seeing them, yes.

Now, you testified that blood is difficult to see on darker clothing such as the socks, correct?

Yes.

And you knew that at the time that you examined them, correct?

I know that in general it is tougher to see on black surfaces, that's correct.

And so when you examined those socks to see if there might be some evidence on them, did you look at them more carefully than if they had been white?

Well, that wasn't the process that was going on there. I was not doing a scientific examination of those items at that point. We were trying to do an inventory of the swatches, the items that were there, and I made a general notation on that, log or inventory, as to what we would be doing in the future with it.

Where was that done?

That was done in Miss Kestler's office.

Do you have a high-intensity light available to you to look at the socks there?

No.

How far away is one?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Let's see. We would have one in the laboratory, so it is, I don't know, probably 50, 75 feet away.

Why did you write down "blood search" on the notes of that meeting that day?

Because that was an indication of something we were planning on doing to those items in the future.

What did you write down "none obvious" for?

So you did examine at least?

Well, I looked at them, yes.

Did you take any pictures that day?

No.

Now, you testified that you took some cuttings from the socks on September 18th, correct?

Referring again to my notes.

Yes.

That's correct.

Now, going back to the 29th when you filled out these notes about blood search, "none obvious," who else was present when that meeting took place?

The inventory that we did at that time was myself, Miss Kestler and Collin Yamauchi.

Was there any discussion at this meeting about the potential significance of these socks?

No, I don't believe so.

Now, why did--you did indicate that somebody should do a blood search? Is that what that indication means?

At some point that was our intent, yes.

How had those socks been stored up until the 29th?

I would have to see if I can find some notes. I believe they were stored in a box in the freezer, but I'm not sure of that.

Do you have a record you can refer to?

I'm trying to figure out where it would be.

Okay. With the information I have with me now, it is indicated that it was part of a very large box which also contained the swatches and a number of items that were all stored frozen.

Now, are you aware that that evidence, that box of evidence, was examined by Susan Brockbank who is a criminalist in your office on the 21st of June?

I am aware that she checked it out, yes.

And did she ever come to you and say, "these socks are real important. We better look at them quickly," anything like that?

Calls for hearsay, argumentative.

Overruled.

She did not say that, no, not to my knowledge.

When is the first time, to your knowledge, that anyone at SID took a picture of those socks after they were seized?

I'm not sure. I don't know if they were photographed when Mr. Yamauchi first did a blood search on them or not.

When did he first do a blood search on them?

No personal knowledge.

If you know?

Off the top of my head I wouldn't know and I don't have those notes with me, I don't believe.

Do you have a rough idea what month it was?

Let's see. I did my--

No personal knowledge, foundation.

Overruled.

It would have to have been before I did my examination on October--excuse me--on September 18th, so it would have been in either August or September.

Should you take pictures of an item of evidence when you are going to alter it in some fashion, both before and after you do the alteration?

That is a good practice, yes.

When you took cuttings of those socks on the 18th, did you have any pictures taken before you altered them?

No, I did not.

Did you have any pictures taken after you altered them?

Not at that time, no.

The pictures that were used here, I believe yesterday for you to identify, when were they taken?

They were taken at some later date at one of the laboratories that worked on these items.

Mr. Blasier, which item are you referring to?

It was a picture of the socks.

214-A and B.

214-A.

One of the policies that is in place in your lab is that items, when they come into the lab, are photographed so that you can preserve their appearance and their condition when you first get them; isn't that correct?

No, it is not.

Do you think that is a good practice?

The items are photographed in the scene. It shows their appearance at the time they are collected, but we do not then photograph them again as soon as they come into the laboratory.

Why not?

Well, it is a combination of that it is not necessary and we deal with large quantities of evidence. It is a matter of practicality.

Now, representatives of the Defense have been at the lab a number of times, correct?

Yes, they have.

Yes, that's correct.

Both before we look at it and after we look at it, correct?

Yes.

When you conduct examinations of evidence yourself when we weren't there, do you photograph what you do?

Not every item, no.

How do you decide which ones to document by photographing and which ones not to?

Historically as a rule very few items are photographed within the laboratory on a regular basis. At this point--well, it still is that many times the evidence items are not photographed.

Can blood on clothing change over time in terms of your ability to extract information from it?

Yes, particularly depending on its storage conditions.

When you decided to do a blood search on the 29th did you give anybody any instructions that we should do this fairly quickly?

No.

Can you estimate the number of months it was from the time those socks were collected until someone looked at them carefully?

It would have been two to three months, something like that.

This meeting on the 29th where you evaluated the evidence for purposes of possible testing, your notes indicate that the various items that were examined were examined very carefully, including the measurements of each individual swatch, weren't they?

Referring to my copy of those notes, we have measurements, yes, indicated under the "quantity" area on each of the swatches.

Is it accurate that this was not just a brief meeting in passing, that this was a meeting that you took some time to carefully review these items?

It took quite awhile to do the inventory, yes.

Are you aware of Andrea Mazzola's testimony in August to the effect that she wrote her initials on the coin envelopes of the blood drops that she collected?

Not relevant.

No, that--

Sustained.

Excuse me.

Would it be of concern to you as a supervisor of criminalists if you reviewed evidence items that to your knowledge had originally been signed by a criminalist and those items were not signed when you looked at them?

Argumentative and irrelevant.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Do you have any method that you use of examining items of evidence at a particular time to see whether it is the same evidence that was collected originally?

We do not have an ongoing formal policy of checking the item that is being examined for, you know, say serology or trace or whatever, against an original property report or something.

Would it be of concern to you if items that you examine, you expected to have initials on them by the person collecting them and they weren't there?

Argumentative, irrelevant.

Overruled.

Are you saying that if I received a packing material that had no initials on it?

That had initials from somebody other than the person you thought had collected it?

Your Honor, this is argumentative and it is not relevant.

Sustained as phrased.

On the 29th when you were going through all these items did you notice anything unusual about the initials on these packing items?

No, I did not.

Hypothetically, if a criminalist had put their initials on an envelope that contained an item of evidence that that criminalist collected and you later examined that envelope and there was no signature on it or someone else's signature on it, would that cause you concern?

Improper hypothetical.

Sustained.

Not relevant, argumentative. Can we approach?

No. Sustained.

Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the Bronco. The Bronco was impounded on the 13th, correct?

I was not involved in any of that. I've heard that.

Were you involved at all in any examinations done on the Bronco during the course of the time it was impounded?

No, I was not.

Did you make any effort to follow what the people that worked under you were doing with respect to examining the Bronco?

To some extent, yes; not moment by moment.

But you were reviewing with them the various searches that they did of the Bronco, correct?

I would hear what items were collected, that type of thing, yes.

Did you review any of those notes as they were prepared?

No, I did not.

Is there some reason why you did not review those notes?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Beyond the scope.

Well, as was previously mentioned, it is still consistent with the notes from both Bundy and Rockingham. I had not received them prior to their being copied and distributed.

To your knowledge did anybody review them before they were copied and distributed?

Not to my knowledge, no.