Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue and conclude your redirect examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Now, Mr. Matheson--

I wanted to put this testing board back.

Now, Mr. Matheson, as to the SID piper tech facility, which is more secure between the lobby area and the corridor area?

The corridor area is the more secure of the two.

And which is more secure between the corridor area and the evidence processing room?

The evidence processing room.

Now, the evidence processing room, in order to get into that showing--using the map, can you show us where you have to go?

From the outside?

Yes.

To get from the--

Or from the corridor at least.

To get from the evidence processing room, which is located in the upper right-hand corner of the map here, you would have to come up this corridor, get through a door that is off the corridor into the storeroom, which requires card access, go through this storeroom and then enter through the door between the storeroom and the evidence processing room also using your access card to unlock it (Indicating).

Now, with respect to June the 14th of last year, you said that Andrea Mazzola was processing some evidence from another case?

She mentioned that to me, that she had.

Objection. Beyond the scope of direct.

Overruled.

And was the case that was being processed one that involved non-biological evidence, specifically cartridge shells from a firearm?

Objection. Leading.

Sustained.

Do you know--

Rephrase the question.

Do you know--do you know what kind of evidence she was processing?

All I know is that--

Objection. Based on hearsay.

Sustained.

All right. Now, when you were in that room, if you had seen anything else being processed that posed any kind of a concern in terms of the evidence in this case, would you have notated that in your notes?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Well, not just related to this case. If I'm ever in a, you know, part of the laboratory where I perceive a problem is being done as far as evidence handling in that room, particular, if one case's evidence is too close to another or people are being sloppy with it, I would mention it to them and possibly note it down.

Now, you testified on your cross-examination that between the 13th and the 16th or between the 13th and the 15th, the evidence in this case was not logged into any computer system or bar coded; is that correct?

That's correct.

And that happened on the 16th?

Correct, after it was booked in at our evidence control unit.

Now, if a person who was--somehow in the facility wanted to figure out where the evidence was in this case between the 13th and the 16th when it was entered into the computer, would there be any computerized records that they could use to figure out where on earth that facility it was?

Would there be any written records that are maintained in the file cabinet or anywhere else that they could use to figure where on earth in the facility it was?

So does the fact that it's not entered into the computer mean that the evidence would be more easily found and tampered with or more difficult to find and tampered with?

Well, you just would not be able to refer to a computer to find out where it's at.

All right. Now, you said, when you were talking about the computer system, that you didn't think the police officers would know how to use it. Why do you think that?

We're talking about the sets computer system at this point?

Right.

Well, it takes a little bit of training. It's not a very easy system to learn, to figure out how to determine the location of an evidence item.

Now, with respect to the sets system, on off hours, can you use that system?

Me personally?

Yes.

No, I can not.

Why not?

Because it's password protected and I don't know what the password is.

So on off hours, if you're at the laboratory, even though you're a manager at SID, you can not use the system to figure out where something is in this facility?

I can't, no.

Can your criminalists?

No.

Can a police officer or detective?

No.

Now, with respect to this door system that's depicted in some of the photographs, particularly on People's 206, the photograph that says card key entry, does that system make a computerized record of who goes in and out--excuse me--of who goes into the doors that have the system?

Yes, it does.

Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark another copy of what has been previously marked as an exhibit but not in total, and this will be People's 226 for identification. It says card access.

All right. Mr. Blasier, do you have a copy of this? All right. People's 226.

Mr. Matheson, I would like to show you People's 226 for identification and see if you recognize that. Why don't you just look through.

Yes, I do.

What is that?

This is a copy of a printout that I provided that shows the activity of the reader for the door into the evidence processing room. In other words, it's all the transactions of whose card was read and whether or not they were allowed entry.

And on the 13th--between the 13th and the 16th, were there any unauthorized entries when you reviewed this document?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained.

Were all of the individuals who entered the room that are listed on this document people who are authorized to do so?

Yes.

Now, if I may, I would like to put this on the elmo.

Now, directing your attention to the date of June 13th as reflected on this document, sir, at the bottom of the document, can you tell us when Dennis Fung badged--excuse me--when Andrea Mazzola badged into the evidence processing room in the evening hours? Is the resolution high enough?

I believe--well, not quite. I believe, from looking at this, that Andrea Mazzola has indicated as having entered that--I believe it's at 1837 or 6:37 in the evening. It's the--the 8th that I'm not totally sure about.

And then Mr. Fung went in at what appears to be 1844 or 6:44?

That's correct. Actually, that one's easier to read at the moment.

And the 13th, is that your understanding of the day that the crime scenes were processed by Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung?

That's correct.

And what does "end of report" mean?

That means that for the search criteria that I put in, which was for all the entries for that door for that date, was completed. That indicates that the last entry there was the last time somebody entered into that particular room.

Now, sir, directing your attention to the next page, 614 at 6:03--is this 6:03 A.M., sir?

Yes, it is.

And does that indicate that you badged into the evidence processing room at that time?

Yes, that's correct.

Now, between the time that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung had last badged in on the 13th and when you badged in on 6-14 at 6:03 A.M., were there any entries into that room?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained.

Sir, does this document--would this document reflect all of the activity that would have occurred between those two times?

With regard to that door, that's correct.

And was there any activity reflected on this document for that door between the time that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung last badged in and the time that you badged in on the 14th?

All right. Now, did you take a look when you were reviewing the documents as to when Mr. Yama--well, is there an analyst who works for your lab named Mr. Yamauchi, Collin Yamauchi?

Yes, there is.

And does he also have access to the evidence processing room?

Yes, he does.

To your knowledge, did he do some of the testing in this case?

Yes.

Now, did you look at some documents as to when Mr. Yamauchi began sampling evidence on the 14th?

I saw something that indicated when they were sampled, yes, a time frame.

When? When? When did it start?

Well, I would like to see the document again.

Okay. May I approach the witness, your Honor?

You may.

Sir, I'm going to show you a document and see if this refreshes your recollection and ask you just to describe for the record what it is you're looking at.

This document is a serology item description note that has listed a number of the evidence items on it along with the item number designation and little drawings of what the samples looked like.

What time did Mr. Yamauchi start his sampling?

On these items, about 1000 hours.

Objection. No foundation. Calls for hearsay.

Sustained. Answer stricken.

Sir, as to the document you just looked at, is that a document that is--you've described before, "serology item description note"; is that correct?

That is correct.

And is that a document that's maintained in the ordinary course of the crime laboratory's business?

Yes, it is.

And is it generated at or near the time that the analyst is actually performing the activity that's contained or written about in the report?

Yes, it is.

When does he fill that out in relationship to the activity that he's reporting?

At or around the time that the activity occurs.

And is that the type of report, when you were describing it before, that also typically will involve little sketches of the items of evidence that the analyst makes while he's looking at it?

Yes, that's correct.

And according to this report, did Mr. Yamauchi begin a sampling at 10:00 A.M.?

Objection, your Honor, on previously stated ground.

Noted. Overruled. 1271.

Yes, about 10:00 A.M.

Now, you had a conversation that involved yourself and Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung relating to what was going to be tested the morning of the 14th; is that true?

Yes.

And that morning, to your knowledge, did Mr. Yamauchi begin sampling items in the Bundy trail at 10:00 o'clock?

Objection to characterization of trail.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Did he begin sampling items that we've referred to in this Court as the Bundy trail, item 47, 48, 49, 50, 52?

Objection.

All right. It's noted. It has been referred to though.

Yes.

So items in that trail--as to--as to certain items in that trail, the testing was underway at and after 10:00 A.M. on 6-14?

As far as the collection and preparation for testing, yes.

And, Mr. Matheson, doesn't that mean that after 10:00 A.M. on 6-14, it was too late to tamper with any evidence because the test had already been done?

Wait, wait, wait.

Objection.

Sustained.

Okay. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to the door entry document, and I would like to--like you to look at the entries that occurred between 6:03 and between--

Can we back up because I want to see where it says 9:59 I believe. Well, wait. Let's look at the next page.

Sir, does this document indicate that at 9:59, Mr. Yamauchi badged into the evidence processing room?

Yes, it does.

This is A.M., 9:59 A.M.?

Yes.

And reviewing the document between the time that you badged in at 6:03 and when Mr. Yamauchi badged in at 9:59 A.M., are all of the people who badged in people who were authorized to badge into that room?

Yes, they are.

Now, reviewing the people who badged in between those two time frames, do you see that you badged in on a number of occasions?

Yes. I was in and out of that room quite a bit.

Can you count the number of times that you went into the room between those two times?

Well, I count five times on this page not counting the one--original entry. And there's none before that time on the following page. So it would be a total of six times that I entered that room by using my card.

And can you tell us the number of times that Andrea Mazzola entered the room in those time frames--in that time frame?

I count five times for that time frame. Her name appears six times, but two of the times are the same minage. Probably just held it up there for too long and it read it twice.

Can you tell us the number of times that Dennis Fung came in between those two time frames?

Okay. I count four times on the first page and none on the second. So four times.

And can you tell us how many times Collin Yamauchi went in?

I see three times on the first page and twice on the second not counting the last time that he used his card to get in.

And by the way, as to your SID employees, do they all know--is it common knowledge within SID that when you use this system, you're creating a permanent record of going into the door?

Yes, they're aware of that.

Now, as to the four of you, Andrea Mazzola, Dennis Fung, Collin Yamauchi and yourself, you were in and out of that room continuously between when you came in at 6:03 and when Mr. Yamauchi came in at 9:59; is that correct?

Objection. Leading.

Overruled.

Well, we were in and out of there quite a bit, yes.

Okay. There were time frames where you were not in is--where one of the four of you might not have been in according to this?

Might not have been, that's right. It doesn't record exits, just entries.

So, sir, with respect to this room, the evidence processing room, is there any location, given the layout of that room, where a person could kind of secrete themselves maybe in an anti room or somewhere else where they can be private and unobserved by someone who walks into the evidence processing room?

No, there is not.

Objection. Argumentative, leading.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Mr. Matheson, is there any kind of mechanical device or any other device that warns someone in the evidence processing room of another criminalist who's about to enter the room?

So the actual activity of badging in is simultaneous to this noise that you're talking about; is that correct?

Well, within a second or two, yes.

So wouldn't you say, Mr. Matheson, that it would have been nearly impossible for someone to have had the degree of privacy that would have been required in order to have tampered with any evidence?

All right. Counsel, that's--

Objection.

Okay. Thank you, your Honor.

All right.

Now, with respect to the people that entered this room between the two time frames that we've been focusing on, are all of those trusted employees of the Scientific Investigation Division?

Objection.

Overruled.

Yes, they are.

And is that true of all the individuals that are contained on this document?

Yes.

Now, in the years that you've worked in the laboratory--well, I guess piper tech has been around for how many years?

Oh, I believe we've been there about four years, four and a half years, something like that.

In that entire time, have you ever come across a situation where you found a police officer to have somehow gained unauthorized, unsupervised access into the lab?

Objection. No foundation, irrelevant.

Overruled.

No, I have not.

Or a civilian?

No, I have not.

Now, at any time, sir, did you ever learn that there was anyone who worked at the Scientific Investigations Division that held or expressed any animosity towards the Defendant?

I have not heard anything like that, no.

Have you ever heard anything like that from Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola?

Objection. Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Sir, when you were watching some of the proceedings in this case, did you in fact see any news footage of Mr. Fung shaking the hands and hugging members of the Defense team?

Objection. Your Honor.

Sustained. Sustained.

Your Honor, I would ask that the jury be admonished to disregard that question.

Nope.

Have you ever seen--

Wait a minute. Let me see counsel here over at the sidebar with the reporter.