When would these reports be copied and distributed? How long after a particular search took place, in general?

Are we talking about in relation to this case or in other cases?

This case. This case.

Well, as a rule, given some of the conditions, that we were trying to get things turned over as soon as possible. I don't know. It would depend. I mean, sometimes we were not receiving some of this information until a significantly later time.

At some point did you become aware of the possible significance of four small stains on the door or the door sill of the Bronco?

No foundation for personal knowledge; calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

The first time I specifically remember hearing about those was in testimony on this case.

So you are not aware at any time prior to that that there was any concern about whether those stains existed or not?

Your Honor, this is argumentative.

Sustained.

When you say the testimony in this case is where you became aware of that, was that Detective Fuhrman's testimony at the preliminary hearing?

No, it was Mr. Fung's during the trial.

You had no awareness of Mr. Fung being sent out by the District Attorney's office to look at that Bronco on July 6th?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

Not as I recall, no.

Were you still supervising him at that time?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Were you still in charge of managing the items in this case at that time?

It was one of my tasks to be involved in tracking the items, yes.

Would you agree that it is proper procedure for a criminalist collecting an individual stain to collect the whole stain, if possible?

If possible. If it is not--if it is a very, very large stain, there is no reason to, but if it is a small stain I would expect it to be collected.

If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?

As much as possible, yes.

And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it?

That's correct.

So you try to get as much as you can, correct?

That's correct.

And your people understand that?

I believe so, yes.

Now, when Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola searched the Bronco on the 14th, did you discuss, after they were done with that, anything about that search?

I may have gotten a general overview of what was collected, but not in detail, no.

Did Dennis Fung ever tell you after the 14th that he had left a lot of blood in the Bronco?

Calls for hearsay, argumentative.

Sustained.

Did you become aware at any time--let me rephrase that. Did you have any awareness at all, after the 14th, that blood--let me rephrase. When did you first become aware that there was more blood in the Bronco after the 14th?

So nobody had informed you of that fact prior to that time?

It is possible that it was mentioned to me. I believe the search and the collection of the item from the Bronco was on August 26th. It is possible at that point that Miss Kestler mentioned to me there was blood present. I did not see any of these items, though, until they were back into the laboratory.

Now, you indicated earlier that it is your practice or the lab's practice, for continuity, to have the same criminalist stay with a case throughout the case, if possible?

If possible we try to.

Now, when did Andrea Mazzola stop working on this case in terms of doing searches?

I believe it was following the Bronco search in the shed, but I'm not quite sure.

On the 14th?

I believe so.

Was she available after the 14th?

She was working, yes.

Was she available to do further searches on this case?

I don't know. She works not in one of my units. I wouldn't know on any particular date and time if she was available.

For continuity of the case isn't it your practice that she should have stayed on the case?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

In--all of this leaves us with the ability to make changes. In other words, in a normal case where we have a crime scene search and then maybe a follow-up scene of one type and that is it, we try and maintain this continuity. However, given the extent and the complexity of this case, at one point we decided to start involving other people besides the original two.

And was she taken off because of her lack of experience?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Why did she not do any further searches in this case?

Because she had duties in her own unit and she was done at that point with this particular situation. We were bringing other people in that potentially would be being involved with the analysis of the evidence farther down the road.

Now, the search that was done on August 26th, that was done by Michele Kestler, the head of the lab, correct?

She was one of the parties there, yes.

And the media was invited to that search, correct?

I believe there was a photographer.

Dennis Fung wasn't invited to that search, was he?

I don't know if he was invited or not.

A photographer from life magazine was invited to that search, correct?

Not relevant.

Sustained.

What level of security, to your knowledge, had been provided to--for the Bronco during the period of time from June 14th until August 24th?

No foundation, personal knowledge.

Sustained. Reask the question.

Do you have any personal knowledge about what security there was surrounding the Bronco between June 14th and August 24th or 26th when that search took place?

No specific knowledge, no.

Now, is there a policy with respect to vehicles in terms of processing them quickly because they are mobile to a certain extent?

I don't know if the reason to process them quickly has to do with any sort of mobility. It would be imperative or important to process any sort of scene quickly, of which a vehicle is one, to attempt to recover any biological evidence that my degrade.

Now, vehicles are not stored in the evidence control unit, are they?

No, they are not.

They are stored at a tow yard, aren't they?

Vague as to time.

Overruled.

There are two different ways that a vehicle can be brought into the possession of our department and stored. One of them is we have a facility where--which is under the control of the police department located behind Parker Center where we have temporary storage of vehicles and it is an area where they can be searched. At some point then they are transferred out to an official police garage or in some cases they go directly to the police garage.

Directly to, I'm sorry?

The police garage, an official tow yard.

This Bronco was moved to a tow yard, was it not?

No foundation of personal knowledge. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

When it was searched on the 26th, where was that?

I don't know about on the 26th. I can make an assumption, but I don't know for a fact.

Is it important to process a vehicle, as a general rule, before it is put in a place where there is ready access by civilians?

Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Well, it is important to perform--it is important to perform any search, if you can, before it has--has the potential of access by anybody that doesn't belong there.

What steps did you take to see that the Bronco was thoroughly and carefully searched before it went to a tow yard, if any?

Beyond the scope, irrelevant.

Overruled.

My understanding was that a search of that vehicle had been performed, I believe it was on the 14th or the 15th of June, and at that point that we were done with it.

So your impression was that everything of evidentiary value had been collected?

And that is the way they should have done it, correct?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Is that the proper way to do it?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

Is what the proper way to do it?

When you go to search the vehicle to do it all at one time if you can, be thorough and get all the evidence that is there so you don't have to go back. Of course the best thing to do is get it all the first time.

And it is not desirable to have to go back a second time to a vehicle or any place to collect evidence that you missed the first time, is it?

It is vague as to "desirable."

Overruled.

If you can avoid it, sure, it would be nice to get everything the first time every time. Occasionally, though, we do have to do repeats.

Your Honor, I would like to show the witness a form.

All right. Mr. Blasier.

Mr. Matheson, do you know what the term "special care" means with respect to a vehicle that has been seized?

Not that specific term, no.

Are you aware of any procedure that LAPD has in effect to provide special care to vehicles that have been seized?

No foundation for this witness' knowledge.

Overruled.

Well, I do know--excuse me. I do know that the garages that the police department uses to store vehicles have areas that are designated as print sheds or what are supposed to be more secure areas than just their lot, so that they are maintained until our arrival for searching.

Let me show you this form again and ask you if you are familiar with it. I wasn't sure I gave you a chance to look at it.

I would object to showing the witness the form. It is nothing that he created.

Overruled. Do you recognize the form?

I recognize it by its title as being a Los Angeles Police Department vehicle investigation form. I have never utilized one of these.

All right. Do you recognize the information? Are you familiar with the information that is on that form?

Information regarding the form itself or what it is filled out?

The information that is contained on the form that has been filled in, are you familiar with that information?

Well, I recognize notations regarding this case and the--

All right. Thank you. Mr. Blasier.

Are you familiar with the procedure that the Los Angeles Police Department uses to release a vehicle that they are done with?

No, I am not.

I have a couple of pictures I would like to have marked.

All right. 1128 and 1129.

Actually I have four, your Honor.

1130 and 1131.

I'm sorry, what was that first number, your Honor?

1128.

Were those marked a through--

1128, 1129, 1130 and 1131.

And generally what are these, Mr. Blasier?

These are pictures of reference blood vials for both victims.

All right.

Mr. Matheson, let me show you first 1128 and ask you if you recognize the blood vial in that picture?

Yes, I do.

And let me show you 1129 and see if you recognize that?

I believe it is the same one.

And what are those pictures of?

Of item no. 60 which I believe is Mr. Goldman's reference blood.

Let me show you 1130 and 1131. Do you recognize those and what are they?

These are both photographs of two sides of item no. 59 which I believe is Miss Brown's reference samples.

May I show these on the elmo, your Honor?

Let me show first 1128 and 1129.

Mr. Matheson, do those two pictures appear to be accurate pictures of the reference blood vial for Ronald Goldman?

Yes, they do.

Now, reference blood from victims is taken by the Coroners, correct?

That's correct.

That is not a function of SID, correct?

That's correct.

And after it is taken at the Coroner's office it is transported in some fashion to SID, correct?

Yes.

Now, you will agree that there is blood on the outside of that vial, would you?

Yes, there is.

There is a substantial amount of blood on the outside, isn't there?

Yes.

Do you know how that blood got on the outside of that vial?

Not specifically, no.

When blood gets outside of a vial would you agree that it is more likely that it can contaminate things?

Something comes in contact with it, sure.

And like a hand would come in contact, you could have some transfer of a small amount of blood from the blood to the hand, correct?

A small amount of blood that you might not be able to see?

That's correct.

But there would be enough blood to test and get a result on using DNA testing, correct?

Vague as to under what conditions.

Sustained.

Are you aware of how much--well, let me withdraw that. Let's take a look at 1130 and 1131. 1130 and 1131, those are pictures of Nicole Brown Simpson's reference vial, correct?

Yes, it is.

And that would have been taken from the--originally taken from the Coroner's office, correct?

Yes.

Would you agree that there is blood also on the outside of that vial?

Yes.

Do you know how the blood got on the outside of the vial?

No, I have no personal knowledge of that.

When you use these vials to perform tests on them, do you pour blood out or do you use something like a pipette to take blood out?

You take it out with a pipetter.

You don't take it out in a fashion that would cause it to spill on the outside of the container, do you?

Try not to.

And to your knowledge does the Coroner follow the same procedure if they need to take a withdrawal, they use pipetters as well?

I don't know the procedures that they use.

When are criminalists supposed to write reports of testing that they do with respect to when they do the test?

The final report?

Any report or notes?

Well, the notes, some of them are going to be completed as the work is done. At some point after that, upon the completion of the analysis, the notes or the summary is going to be brought together to make the report.

Is it acceptable procedure within your department for a criminalist to perform a test in July and not make any record of it until October?

That would be bad, wouldn't it?

Well, argumentative as to "bad."

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

That would be unacceptable, wouldn't it?

I would want to know why that much time past.

You are aware that that happened with respect to a test that Dennis Fung did on the Bronco on July 6th, are you not?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

It is also vague.

Overruled.

I know that there was some information that was provided in a report at a later date. I don't specifically know which one you are talking about right now.

What effort did you make to find out about it, like you said you would?

Well, assumes facts not in evidence, also beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Do you mean to find out why it had taken that long?

Yes.

Well, if I received a report after that amount of time, I would just ask him why it took so long to get the information down on a report.

What did you find out when you made that inquiry this time?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

If you made an inquiry?

Well, it is an improper hypothetical.

It is not a hypothetical. Did you make such an inquiry with regard to this report?

I am not specifically remembering which report we are talking about.

Well, let me make it more specific. A pheno test on purported or alleged stains on the bottom of the Bronco door?

Would it be possible for me to review that report?

Mr. Blasier, why don't we move on to something else and we will find that later.

Okay.

Is it proper procedure, when you do a pheno test on something such as a car, to photograph it before you do the test?

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. As an explanation for that is if I see a stain and I don't know whether or not it is blood, I normally will not photograph it first because if it is not blood, if it is not something of interest, then it won't be collected, and thus it is not evidence, there is no reason to have a photograph of it. If I--it is something that I know I'm going to be collecting, there is a very good chance I would have it photographed before performing the pheno test on it.

What if it is something that you suspect you are going to be collecting and that is why you run a test on it to begin with?

Improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

Shouldn't you take a picture first?

It is not relevant.

Overruled.

If it is something that I suspect that I'm going to be collecting? Because we do a lot of spot tests out in the field. In--well, if I found a blood stain or a stain that I suspected of being blood, and many times you can tell just by looking that it is probably blood, again it depends on the situation. If it is a very small sample and then I was going to be consuming a large portion of it, first off, I wouldn't want to necessarily run a pheno, but if I felt it was necessary, it would be a good idea to document first. If it is a larger sample, larger item and by removing a small portion and running my test is not going to make any significant alteration to it, then no, I wouldn't necessarily do it; I might.

Well, let me give you a more detailed hypothetical. Suppose a Prosecutor sends you out to look at something because a detective said there is blood there, go out, look at it and see if it is blood, come back and tell me. Would you document that by way of taking a photograph.

Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Is it proper to do a pheno test on an item and take a picture after you do the test while the stain is still moist from the pheno test?

Not relevant.

Overruled.

I don't see any problem with it being moist from the test. As I mentioned before, I laid out the reasons or the times where I would have a photograph taken and that is if I ran--let's say I had a stain that I didn't know whether or not it was blood and I ran my pheno test on it and it turned out that it was blood and had it photographed. At that point I wouldn't worry whether or not it was damp from the testing.

Well, adding that moisture changes the appearance of it, does it not?

It depends on the size of the stain. If you are just testing a small corner, yes, it does, it makes a minor alteration.

Mr. Blasier, I have to interrupt at this point. Remember all my admonitions to you. If you will just step back in the jury room. Don't go too far.