home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
People of California vs. O.J. Simpson
/
People of California vs. O.J. Simpson.iso
/
xscripts
/
apr05.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-04-07
|
221KB
|
5,459 lines
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995
10:04 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(PAGES 21822 THROUGH 21856,
VOLUME 121A, TRANSCRIBED AND
SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
ANYTHING WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE
INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?
ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY JEX, LET'S HAVE THE JURY,
PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY
ALL REMAINING MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU PLEASE DRAW THE
NUMBER OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 795, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN SEAT
NO. 9.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MORNING SESSION THIS
MORNING MRS. ROBERTSON WILL RENUMBER THE SEATS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE
WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
DENNIS FUNG,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING
ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS
FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
MR. FUNG.
YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.
MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.
MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF
THE JURY.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. SCHECK:
Q MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY IN YOUR
TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A PROTOCOL AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL AT SID?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID HE WAS AWARE OF IT;
HE HADN'T SEEN IT.
YES OR NO, ARE YOU AWARE OF IT?
THE WITNESS: I AM AWARE OF A MANUAL. I DON'T KNOW
IF IT IS IN EFFECT OR NOT, THOUGH.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: JUST TO BE PRECISE, I THINK I
ASKED YOU:
"ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FIELD PROCEDURES
MANUAL?"
AND YOU ANSWERED:
"I AM. I KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN. I -- BUT IT HAS
NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT."
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID YESTERDAY?
A I MAY HAVE SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.
Q OKAY.
AND, UMM, NOW, ARE YOU TELLING US, SIR, THAT AS
FAR AS YOU KNOW THERE IS NO MANUAL IN EFFECT THAT
ESTABLISHES PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR YOUR CRIME
LABORATORY?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT IS OVERBROAD.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. IS THERE A MANUAL?
THE WITNESS: I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK YOU SAID BEFORE
YOU KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN, RIGHT?
A I KNOW A DRAFT HAS BEEN WRITTEN.
MR. SCHECK: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO
MARK THIS VOLUME.
THE COURT: YOU CAN MARK IT.
MR. SCHECK: NEXT IN ORDER.
THE CLERK: 1071.
(DEFT'S 1071 FOR ID = MANUAL)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT
THE -- THAT VOLUME, SIR, AND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LEAF
THROUGH IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE SEEN ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
YES, I HAVE.
Q SO YOU HAVE SEEN THIS?
A YES.
Q OH, OKAY.
SO ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU ARE -- YOU HAVE
SEEN THAT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE PROTOCOLS AND
PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE -- THAT THIS MANUAL IS
-- IS A -- IS POLICY FOR OUR LABORATORY. IT MAY BE JUST A
ROUGH DRAFT RIGHT NOW SUBJECT TO REVIEW.
Q WELL, IT CONTAINS VARIOUS PROTOCOLS AND
PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINALISTS, DOES IT NOT?
A IT CONTAINS PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR
CRIMINALISTS, YES.
Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE SEEN THESE WRITTEN
PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES, BUT AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM?
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
A THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING, NO.
Q OKAY.
ARE THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THAT MANUAL
RULES THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW?
A I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE ENTIRE MANUAL, SO I
CAN'T STATE YES OR NO FOR THAT.
Q OKAY.
THEN AS THEY COME UP PERHAPS WE WILL LOOK AT
THEM ONE AT A TIME, AND IF YOU WANT, THAT VOLUME IS YOURS
AND YOU CAN TAKE IT OVER THE LUNCH PERIOD AND LOOK AT IT.
FAIR ENOUGH?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT A PROPER
QUESTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. GOLDBERG: I MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THAT LAST COMMENT IS STRICKEN.
THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD IT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IS IT YOUR POSITION, SIR,
THAT THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES AT THE CRIME LAB ARE
COMMUNICATED ORALLY?
A THEY ARE COMMUNICATED THROUGH A SID ACADEMY
THAT IS GIVEN TO CRIMINALISTS IN OUR DIVISION. SOME OF THE
PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT AND MUCH OF IT IS ORAL AND
THROUGH EXPERIENCE, ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE SOME WRITTEN HANDOUTS
THAT YOU GET?
A I HAVE RECEIVED HANDOUTS BEFORE, YES.
Q AND SOME OF THEM, JUST IN YOUR QUICK PERUSAL,
SEEM TO BE IN THAT MANUAL?
A YES.
Q AND OTHERS ARE SORT OF COMMUNICATED ORALLY?
A SOME OF THEM ARE COMMUNICATED ORALLY, YES.
Q SORT OF AN ORAL TRADITION WITHIN THE
LABORATORY?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THIS DOCUMENT, THIS MANUAL, UMM, THAT IS
IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FOR PURPOSES OF REFERENCE,
ISN'T IT?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION I THINK IT IS
KEPT IN THERE, BUT I DON'T --
Q AND THE REASON IT IS KEPT THERE IS IN CASE
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT, IT WOULD INFORM THEM AS TO
THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS CONTAINED WITHIN IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
DO YOU KNOW?
THE WITNESS: THAT IS POSSIBLE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND THERE IS ALSO ONE OF THESE
MANUALS IN YOUR CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK?
A I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.
Q WELL, WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT -- MAY I APPROACH
THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: VOLUME 1, PAGE 1, LET ME CALL
YOUR ATTENTION TO --
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. SCHECK: PLEASE DO.
MR. GOLDBERG: BEFORE COUNSEL READS ANYTHING?
MR. SCHECK: I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANYTHING. I'M JUST
GOING TO DIRECT THE WITNESS' ATTENTION TO A PARAGRAPH AND
ASK HIM TO READ IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS
RECOLLECTION.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE
PROCEDURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO FOUNDATION THAT HIS
RECOLLECTION NEED TO BE REFRESHED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR
NOT IT IS REQUIRED THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN
THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK?
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE OR
NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO PERHAPS YOU COULD LOOK AT THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH THERE AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO
BE IN THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE SAME
OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.
THE WITNESS: ACCORDING TO THE PARAGRAPH IT SAYS IT
SHOULD BE.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, WAIT.
YOUR HONOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THE WITNESS WAS
ASKED TO READ, SO I WOULD ASK -- OUT LOUD, SO IT IS
NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.
WE HAVE A MAJOR FOUNDATION PROBLEM HERE.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE INDICATED HE WASN'T SURE.
THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SPENT HOW LONG IN THE TRACE
ANALYSIS UNIT?
A APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF YEARS.
Q AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT PERIOD?
A THAT WOULD BE FROM 1987 TO 1990.
Q UMM, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF
THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT?
A AT THAT TIME?
Q AT ANY TIME, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS NOT
CREATED UNTIL AFTER I HAD LEFT THE UNIT.
Q WELL, WHEN WAS THIS MANUAL CREATED?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q WELL, YOU SAID YOU LEFT IN 1990?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD THIS MANUAL HAVE BEEN PULLED TOGETHER IN
1992?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THERE IS A DATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
PAGE THAT SAYS "REP A, 1992."
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING,
SIR, THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO ESTABLISH THE
PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DAILY OPERATION OF THE
CRIME SCENE FIELD UNIT?
THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH
THE REPORTER.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR.
THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE, MR. SCHECK, IS YOU CANNOT
CROSS-EXAMINE SOMEBODY ON SOMETHING THEY HAVE NOT REFERRED
TO IN FORMING THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THIS CASE.
ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO CROSS-EXAMINE
HIM ON THIS DRAFT MANUAL, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD FOR A MINUTE?
THE COURT: BE MY GUEST.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT HIS TESTIMONY AT THE
PRESENT TIME, AND I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN MY INTENTIONS, IS
THAT HE HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS A MANUAL THAT HE IS
AWARE OF, HE HAS PERUSED THROUGH IT, HE HAS SEEN VARIOUS
HANDOUTS. THIS MANUAL IS COMPOSED OF HANDOUTS ON VARIOUS
DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
THE COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOUNDATION.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST --
THE COURT: NO, THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, SIR, THAT YOU
GOT A CALL TO RESPOND ON THIS CASE AT ABOUT 5:00 A.M. FROM
MISS MAZZOLA?
A NO.
Q WHAT TIME WAS IT?
A APPROXIMATELY 5:30.
Q 5:30. AND AT THAT TIME WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?
A SHE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS A SCENE WE
NEEDED TO RESPOND TO IN WEST L.A. DIVISION.
Q ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT?
A I DON'T -- SHE MAY HAVE SAID IT WAS A HOMICIDE.
Q AND YOU THEN MET HER NEXT AT THE SID
LABORATORY?
A YES.
Q SHE PICKED YOU UP I GUESS AT HOME. WAS THAT
IT?
A NO. WE MET AT THE LABORATORY.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT?
A IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:45, AROUND THERE.
Q SO THE FIRST CALL THAT YOU GOT ABOUT THIS CASE
WAS YOU ARE SAYING AT 5:35?
A I BELIEVE I SAID AROUND 5:30.
Q AROUND 5:35.
AND YOU NOW REALIZE THAT THAT IS FIVE HOURS --
ABOUT FIVE HOURS, FIVE AND A HALF HOURS AFTER OFFICER RISKE
FIRST DISCOVERED THE VICTIMS AT THE SCENE ON BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID -- WHEN YOU CONFERRED
WITH THE DETECTIVES LATER IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER LEARN
WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO?
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL BEING INFORMED OF THE
EXACT TIME THAT THE BODIES WERE FOUND.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WERE YOU INFORMED AS TO
WHEN THE SCENE WAS SECURED?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION
READ BACK?
THE COURT: YOU HAVE GOT IT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF
YOU.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT USED TO THIS.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED OF WHEN
THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WAS FIRST SECURED?
A THE -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY DETECTIVE
LANGE WHEN HE GAVE ME MY WALK-THROUGH.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU ARRIVED, YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM
LOCATION AT ABOUT 7:15?
A ACCORDING TO MY NOTES I ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM
AT 7:10.
Q 7:10.
AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM DID
DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER CRIME
SCENE AT BUNDY?
A YES, HE DID.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU THAT TWO PEOPLE HAD BEEN
MURDERED THERE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU LEARN, IN YOUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT THERE WERE TWO
VICTIMS AT BUNDY AND THE BODIES HAD BEEN DISCOVERED AT
12:00?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT
THE CRIMINALISTS SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE?
A A REQUIREMENT?
Q YES. ANY RULES OR PROCEDURES AS TO HOW LONG
IT SHOULD TAKE FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT A CRIME SCENE
ONCE YOU RECEIVE A CALL?
A ONCE WE RECEIVE A CALL WE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN
AN HOUR, IF IT IS POSSIBLE.
Q WITHIN AN HOUR?
A WE TRY TO, YES.
Q OKAY. SO MISS MAZZOLA CALLED YOU AT 5:30?
A YES.
Q AND YOU GOT TO THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT
TIME YOU ARE TELLING US?
A 7:10.
Q 7:10.
SO WHAT IS THAT, AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES
FROM THE TIME YOU WERE CALLED?
A AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES.
Q FORTY MINUTES. BETTER. SO ABOUT TWO HOURS,
RIGHT?
A NO, AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES.
Q AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES.
MISS MAZZOLA WAS CALLED, YOU REALIZE, AT FIVE
O'CLOCK, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY; SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT
MISS MAZZOLA RECEIVED HER FIRST CALL AT 5:00 A.M.?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOUR RESPONSE TIME TO
ROCKINGHAM WAS AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM YOU HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A
DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY WITH THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE
INVESTIGATION?
A A REQUIREMENT?
Q YEAH. AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO START YOUR
ACTIVITIES AT THE CRIME SCENE WITH A CONVERSATION WITH THE
OFFICER THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE?
A IT IS PREFERABLE.
Q WELL, ON YOUR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION
CHECKLIST ISN'T THERE A CATEGORY INDICATING "CRIME SCENE
DISCUSSED WITH OFFICER IN CHARGE"?
A THERE IS A PLACE FOR A CHECK MARK, YES.
Q AND ISN'T THAT THE FIRST THING YOU ARE SUPPOSED
TO DO, IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE OR THE
OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE?
A NO.
Q YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT?
A NO.
Q WHEN ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THAT?
A AFTER YOU CHECK IN WITH THE LOG-IN OFFICER.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU LOG IN AND THEN THE FIRST THING YOU DO
IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE
SCENE?
A IF IT IS POSSIBLE, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH
THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE IS TO FIND OUT WHAT IT
IS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING?
A YES.
Q AND TO FIND OUT WHAT POSSIBLE EVIDENCE EXISTS
AT THE SCENE THAT MAY NEED TO BE COLLECTED?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAD SUCH A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE
VANNATTER WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU LEARN THAT YOU WEREN'T JUST GOING
TO BE COLLECTING EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT YOU WOULD
SOON HAVE TO GO TO BUNDY?
A YES.
Q AND THAT THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS AT BUNDY?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VICTIMS
AT BUNDY BEING VERY CLOSE TO EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THEIR
PHYSICAL PROXIMITY?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU
TO NEED TO KNOW -- WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW
WHAT KIND OF CRIME SCENE YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GOING
TO AFTER ROCKINGHAM?
A COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
Q YEAH. WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM, ALL RIGHT,
YOU KNEW YOU WOULD BE HAVING TO GO TO BUNDY NEXT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WERE YOU TOLD THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING
FOR YOU AT BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT DID -- HOW -- WERE YOU
GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO JUST COLLECT
ONE STAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AND THEN MOVE ON TO BUNDY?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN
FOR THE CRIMINALISTS FIRST TO GO TO BUNDY, JUST COLLECT A
RED STAIN OFF THE BRONCO AND THEN MOVE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE TO BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A
MINUTE?
THE COURT: SURE, WITH THE REPORTER.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ALSO, COUNSEL -- WE ARE AT THE SIDE
BAR -- FROM THIS POINT ON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-LAWYER
LIMIT ON SIDE BARS PER SIDE. THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWYERS UP
HERE.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ELICIT
FROM THE WITNESS, THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY, THEY ARE
NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.
THEY ARE ONLY BEING OFFERED FOR THE FACT THAT
IT WAS SAID TO THIS WITNESS IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTIONS OF
WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO NEXT AND WHAT HE WAS --
THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE CODE EXCEPTION?
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK IT IS -- IT IS WHATEVER
THE EXACT EVIDENCE CODE IS FOR HEARSAY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT
BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED; IT IS
ONLY BEING ELICITED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS SAID TO MR.
FUNG AS TO HIS STATE OF MIND AS TO WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO
DO IN PROCEEDING WITH HIS INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM AND
THEN HIS SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AT BUNDY.
THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS A
SUBSEQUENT-CONDUCT-IN-LIGHT-OF-WHAT-WAS-SAID-TO-HIM
EXCEPTION?
MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCY IN
THAT CASE.
WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND MR. FUNG'S STATE OF MIND
BEING RELEVANT ON CERTAIN ISSUES, IT IS, BUT AT THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE AS TO WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS WITH
RESPECT TO WHERE HE WAS GOING TO GO AND WHEN, I DON'T SEE
WHY THAT IS RELEVANT.
MR. SCHECK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT
I THINK WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE LANGE
THAT WHEN HE LEFT THE CRIME SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM HE WENT TO
BUNDY, THAT IT WAS HIS EXPECTATION THAT THE CRIMINALISTS
WOULD BE FOLLOWING SOON AFTER.
AND I WANT TO EXPLORE WITH THIS WITNESS WHETHER
OR NOT ANYBODY EVER TOLD HIM, NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER ASSERTED, FOR THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS
SAID.
I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE TYPES OF STATEMENTS
ARE HEARSAY AND I REALLY NEEDED TO ESTABLISH WHAT HE DID.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM
OUT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REASK THE QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TO
DISREGARD ANY DISRUPTIONS IN THE AUDIENCE. I THINK THAT
PARTICULAR INCIDENT SPOKE FOR ITSELF.
MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
Q MR. FUNG WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM
CRIME SCENE DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL THAT YOU DETECTIVE
LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY?
A I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL IF HE MENTIONED IT
WAS DETECTIVE LANGE HIMSELF, BUT HE DID MENTION THERE WAS
ANOTHER SCENE AT BUNDY.
Q AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT AT THAT SCENE THERE
WERE -- IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND THERE WERE TWO
VICTIMS' BODIES THERE?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF THE NEED TO
ARRIVE AT BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS, FOR THE CRIMINALISTS
TO GET THERE BEFORE THE CORONERS?
A NO.
Q GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISN'T IT CERTAINLY
DESIRABLE FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE
SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS?
A FROM MY POINT OF VIEW?
Q YES.
A YES.
Q AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT TO ARRIVE AT A
HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS IS YOU WANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AT THE
SCENE BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO
DOCUMENT THAT SCENE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS BEST YOU
CAN?
A THAT IS PREFERABLE. THAT IS PREFERABLE THAT
THAT IS DONE, YES.
Q SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS?
A YES.
Q YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC
PHOTOGRAPHER ABOUT WHERE TO TAKE PICTURES?
A YES.
Q YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE FRAGILE TRACE
EVIDENCE AS BEST YOU CAN?
A YES.
Q COLLECT IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE INTEGRITY OF
THE EVIDENCE IS PRESERVED?
A IF NECESSARY, YES.
Q GET TO THAT CRIME SCENE BEFORE ANYBODY WALKS
THROUGH IT WHO IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THERE?
A YES.
Q SO WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM NOW, YOU ARE
TELLING US YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER HAD
ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q BUT DID YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY HOURS IT
WAS, WITHOUT KNOWING THE PRECISE TIMES, HOW MANY HOURS THE
VICTIMS HAD BEEN AT BUNDY WITHOUT ANY CRIMINALISTS ARRIVING
AT THE SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION
AND HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I ONLY KNEW THAT THE CRIME SCENE FROM
BUNDY WAS FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE, SOME -- IN THE EARLY
MORNING HOURS OR THE NIGHT BEFORE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU KNEW IT WAS THE EARLY
MORNING HOURS AND NOW YOU WERE ARRIVING AT ROCKINGHAM AT
AROUND 7:15, 7:20?
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED AGAIN.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH
DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID HE EXPRESS ANY URGENCY TO YOU THAT
YOU SHOULD FINISH YOUR WORK AT ROCKINGHAM QUICKLY TO GET TO
BUNDY?
A HE DID INFORM ME THAT I DID HAVE ANOTHER CRIME
SCENE AT BUNDY AND HE DIDN'T RUSH ME ALONG, NO.
Q WELL, DID HE TELL YOU THAT -- DID HE INDICATE
TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE
A VERY LONG TIME AT ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO GET TO THE BUNDY SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS?
DID HE EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO YOU?
A I DON'T RECALL THAT.
Q DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO HIM?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU
THOUGHT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME EXTRA HELP BECAUSE YOU HAD
THESE TWO CRIME SCENES?
A I BELIEVE I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER --
ANOTHER TEAM.
Q YOU ASKED HIM THAT?
A I THINK I DID.
Q AND YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER TEAM
BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET
CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?
A IT WAS A RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO HIM IF HE WANTED
IT.
Q WELL, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET A SET
OF CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, DIDN'T YOU,
AS YOU WERE TALKING WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHEN YOU FIRST
ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE?
A I LEFT IT UP TO HIS DISCRETION.
Q HE TOLD YOU THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARY?
A HE NEVER SAID THAT.
Q WELL, DID HE SAY, "NO, WE DON'T NEED THE HELP,
THE EXTRA HELP"?
A I DON'T RECALL IF HE EVER SAID THAT.
Q WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AS TO HOW HE
RESPONDED TO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA
TO GET SOME BACK-UP TO GET ANOTHER TEAM TO BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT CALLS
FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE
VANNATTER YOU PLACED A CALL TO SID, DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I DID.
Q TO NOTIFY SUPERVISORS?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS
A CASE THAT REQUIRED IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU PLACED THAT CALL AT 7:15 YOU KNEW
THAT THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES?
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXACTLY AT 7:15, BUT I
KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES WHEN I MADE THE CALL.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, DID YOU CALL SID AND SPEAK TO A WOMAN
NAMED LISA SIBETTA, S-I-B-E-T-T-A, SOMEBODY FROM
TOXICOLOGY? DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING A FIRST CALL TO HER?
A I BELIEVE MY FIRST CALL WAS TO CRIMINALIST
FLAHERTY IN TOXICOLOGY.
Q YOU WERE LOOKING FOR A SUPERVISOR?
A YES, I WAS.
Q YOU WERE LOOKING FOR MICHELE KESTLER?
A YES, I WAS.
Q SHE IS THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY OR WAS THE
ACTING HEAD AT THAT TIME?
A SHE WAS A CO-ACTING.
Q CO-ACTING HEAD? ALL RIGHT.
BUT YOU WERE LOOKING TO TALK WITH HER, WERE YOU
NOT?
A I WAS LOOKING TO SPEAK WITH A SUPERVISOR.
Q RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU -- AND THAT IS BECAUSE --
WELL, YOU TELL US.
WHAT WAS IT THAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR MIND THAT
LED YOU TO CALL FOR A SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU EVEN ARRIVED AT
THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE?
A THERE ARE GUIDELINES WITHIN OUR LABORATORY THAT
IF THERE IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE OR A DOUBLE OR TRIPLE
HOMICIDE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT SUPERVISORS BE
NOTIFIED.
Q THOSE WERE THE POLICIES YOU AND I DISCUSSED
YESTERDAY?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q PRESS, UNUSUAL CASE? DO YOU REMEMBER
DISCUSSING THOSE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN HANDOUT IN THE
MANUAL WITH RESPECT TO THOSE POLICIES?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q WELL, MOVING ON, SO YOU -- YOU FELT THE NEED TO
CALL FOR THE SUPERVISOR AT 7:15 BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT?
A BEFORE I SPOKE TO HIM?
Q YES, BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER,
YOU MADE THIS FIRST CALL TO SID LOOKING FOR MICHELE
KESTLER?
A NO.
Q THAT FIRST NOTIFICATION CALL WAS NOT BEFORE YOU
SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A IT WAS AFTER.
Q IT WAS AFTER?
A YES.
Q UMM, DIDN'T YOU ALSO THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION
AT 7:50 WITH GREG MATHESON?
A I -- IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES.
Q AND AT THAT TIME -- AND HE WAS A SUPERVISOR,
WAS HE NOT?
A YES, HE WAS.
Q AND YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH --
A OR HE IS.
Q -- WITH GREG MATHESON AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH
DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A YES.
Q WE WILL GET TO THAT CONVERSATION IN A MINUTE,
BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, DID HE TELL YOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING
SOME PROCESSING OF THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q AND THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE CRIME
SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND AFTER THIS -- AND THAT WAS AFTER -- YOU
REALIZED THAT AFTER THIS INITIAL CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL
WITH THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT
THE SCENE, DID YOU?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND, UMM, IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, YOUR
INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, UMM, THAT
YOU REALIZED THAT, UMM, ANDREA MAZZOLA COULD NOT ACT AS
THE, QUOTE, OFFICER IN CHARGE, OF THIS CASE?
A I THOUGHT IT MORE PRUDENT THAT I BE THE OFFICER
IN CHARGE.
Q I THINK YOUR PHRASE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IS
THAT AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER YOU
REALIZED THAT MISS MAZZOLA SHOULD TAKE SOMETHING OF A
BACKSEAT? ARE THOSE YOUR WORDS?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- I WILL WITHDRAW THE
OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU GAVE THAT EXPLANATION
ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, THAT PRIOR TO GOING TO THE SCENE,
WHEN YOU WERE FILLING OUT YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST,
ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS OFFICER IN CHARGE
BEFORE YOU GOT THERE?
REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS
GOING TO BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON THIS HOMICIDE CASE
UNTIL YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND SPOKE WITH DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH
DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU FIRST REALIZED THAT YOU WOULD
HAVE TO BE DOING A VEHICLE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN TO YOUR -- YOU HAVE
A FORM THAT IS KNOWN AS A VEHICLE CHECKLIST, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU FILLED ONE OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE
SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT?
A ONE WAS FILLED OUT, YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU?
A YES, I DO.
Q COULD YOU TURN TO THE FIRST PAGE OF IT.
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: COULD I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I APOLOGIZE, COUNSEL.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST
FORM, WAS THAT -- WITHDRAWN.
ON THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM THERE IS ALSO A
BOX THAT INDICATES WHO IS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE
VEHICLE SEARCH, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND ON THAT BOX IT IS LISTED AS ANDREA MAZZOLA
AS BEING IN CHARGE -- THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE
SEARCH, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q SO ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU HADN'T GIVEN UP THE
IDEA THAT MAYBE MISS MAZZOLA WOULD STILL BE SORT OF ACTING
AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM?
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU TOLD US THE ONLY REASON THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON
THE ROCKINGHAM CHECKLIST IS THAT IT WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE
YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, RIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID ON DIRECT.
A THAT WAS THE REASON WHY SHE WAS PUT IN THE
"OFFICER IN CHARGE" SPACE, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND -- BUT AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN TO THE SCENE
AND AFTER YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE
SEARCHING THE BRONCO, ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS STILL LISTED ON
THE VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE
USE OF THIS WORD "TRAINEE" WITH RESPECT TO MISS MAZZOLA.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q AND UMM, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DESCRIPTION OF
MISS MAZZOLA AS A TRAINEE? YOU DON'T THINK THAT IT IS FAIR
TO DESCRIBE HER ON JUNE 13TH AS A TRAINEE; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I THINK A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF HER IS
CRIMINALIST 1.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: CRIMINALIST 1, BUT IN TERMS OF
HER LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE, YOU DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS -- WHAT
WORD WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE, IF NOT TRAINEE?
WOULD YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD
"NOVICE," THAT SHE WAS A NOVICE IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. IT IS
ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: IT IS VAGUE, TOO.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
Q YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HER -- WHEN YOU HIRE ON AT
SID YOU AUTOMATICALLY DAY ONE ON THE JOB YOU ARE A
CRIMINALIST 1, RIGHT?
A IF YOU ARE HIRED IN THAT CAPACITY, YES.
Q RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU GET ON THE JOB YOU ARE
IMMEDIATELY A CRIMINALIST 1, FAIR TO SAY?
A YES.
Q BUT BEING A CRIMINALIST 1 DOESN'T TELL ONE
MUCH ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE, CORRECT?
A IN REGARD TO?
Q HOW MANY CRIME SCENES YOU HAVE PROCESSED, WHAT
YOU KNOW?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND SO IT IS A PERIOD -- WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE
COURSE OF -- THERE IS A COURSE OF TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST
1 THAT ONE GOES THROUGH IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE?
A YES.
Q YOU LEARN BY EXPERIENCE?
A YES.
Q AND IN TERMS OF LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE, MISS
MAZZOLA WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS? FAIR
ENOUGH?
A SHE WAS AT THE BEGINNING, YES.
Q WOULD IT BE FAIR TO CALL HER A ROOKIE IN
PROCESSING CRIME SCENES?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY "ENTRY
LEVEL."
MR. SCHECK: I AM LOOKING FOR A WORD THAT THE WITNESS
IS COMFORTABLE WITH.
THE COURT: THERE HAVE BEEN ROOKIES OF THE YEAR WHO
HAVE BEEN MVP'S.
MR. SCHECK: SURE THING.
Q WELL, WOULD YOU CALL HER A NOVICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ENTRY LEVEL? HOW ABOUT THAT?
A YES.
Q SHE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AT THE BEGINNING
OF HER LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE PROCESS, AT THE BEGINNING OF
IT?
A SHE IS STARTING IT, YES.
Q SHE WAS STARTING OUT?
A YES.
Q NOW, DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN YOU
WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT WHETHER HELP WAS
NEEDED, THAT MISS MAZZOLA WAS THIS ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO
WAS STARTING OUT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q MEANING YOU ARE NOT SURE?
A I'M NOT SURE.
Q DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO
TELL HIM THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU ARRIVED WITH AT THE CRIME
SCENE WAS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THAT WAS STARTING OUT?
A NO.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR SUGGESTION TO
DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME HELP IN THIS
CASE, DIDN'T YOU THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO TELL HIM THAT ONE
OF THE REASONS YOU NEEDED HELP IS THAT YOU WERE WITH A
PERSON THAT WAS ENTRY LEVEL AND JUST STARTING OUT?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO TELL THAT TO DETECTIVE
VANNATTER?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU AT ALL INTIMIDATED BY DETECTIVE
VANNATTER?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU AT ALL RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS
JUDGMENTS?
A NO.
Q WHEN HE TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT YOU
OUGHT TO GET SOME EXTRA HELP IN THIS CASE, WERE YOU
RELUCTANT TO QUESTION THAT DECISION?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU MADE THE SUGGESTION
THAT EXTRA HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY?
A I ASKED HIM IF ANOTHER TEAM -- IF HE WANTED
ANOTHER TEAM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU -- AS I THINK YOU JUST TOLD US, AND ONE
OF THE REASONS WAS YOU KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THE
CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS?
A NOT -- THAT WASN'T THE SPECIFIC REASON, NO.
Q WELL, THAT WAS ONE REASON? DIDN'T YOU JUST
TELL US THAT, THAT WAS ONE REASON?
A I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT, NO.
Q NO?
WELL, WHEN YOU MADE THIS SUGGESTION THAT MORE
HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID HE JUST
IGNORE THAT SUGGESTION, NOT RESPOND TO YOU AT ALL?
A NO.
Q HE DIDN'T IGNORE IT?
A NO, HE DIDN'T.
Q HE SAID NO, WE DON'T NEED ANY EXTRA HELP?
A I BELIEVE HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT
HE PREFERRED THAT ONE TEAM HANDLE BOTH CRIME SCENES SO THAT
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WOULD NOT BE MESSED UP.
Q THAT IS WHAT HE SAID?
A SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN HE SAID THAT, DID YOU THEN RESPOND TO
HIM, "WELL, UMM, WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE ONE OF THE
PEOPLE I'M WORKING WITH IS ENTRY LEVEL, JUST STARTING
OUT"?
DID YOU SAY THAT TO HIM AT THAT POINT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERN TO HIM THAT
WHATEVER WORRIES HE HAD ABOUT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, UMM, IT WAS
STILL MORE IMPORTANT TO GET ANOTHER TEAM OF CRIMINALISTS TO
BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS ARRIVED?
A I DID NOT SAY THAT TO HIM.
Q DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN WHEN HE SAID TO YOU,
NO, I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE WITH ONE TEAM? DID YOU HAVE
THAT CONCERN?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT THAT IT ASSUMES
A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. MAYBE I COULD BE HEARD ABOUT THAT
TO EXPLAIN IT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER --
MAYBE WE BETTER HAVE THE COURT REPORTER REPEAT THE
QUESTION.
THE COURT: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT THAT TIME THAT IT
WAS IMPORTANT FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY
SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS MOVED THE BODY?
THE WITNESS: NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, NOW, WERE YOU WORRIED WHEN
DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT OTHER
CRIMINALISTS BE CALLED IN TO HELP? WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT
THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WORKING WITH THIS PERSON WHO WAS
ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WHEN YOU WERE WORKING
WITH THE PERSON WHO IS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT THAT
PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE SLOWER?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
ARE YOU FINISHED?
A WHEN TWO PEOPLE ARE WORKING, SOMETIMES IT GOES
FASTER.
Q BUT WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH -- HAD YOU EVER
WORKED WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA BEFORE THIS DAY?
A YES, I HAD.
Q HOW MANY CRIME SCENES HAD YOU DONE WITH HER?
A ONE.
Q HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE.
Q TWO DAYS BEFORE DID YOU A CRIME SCENE WITH
ANDREA MAZZOLA?
A YES.
Q WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE?
A WHERE SHE -- WE WERE WORKING AS A TEAM, YES.
Q WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE? YOU DID A CRIME
SCENE TWO DAYS BEFORE WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA? ARE YOU SURE OF
THAT?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU HAD NO CONCERN -- WERE YOU WORRIED --
WITHDRAWN.
WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH A PERSON WHO IS ENTRY
LEVEL AND STARTING OUT, DON'T YOU FEEL IT IS REQUIRED FOR
YOU TO OBSERVE WHAT SHE IS DOING MORE THAN YOU WOULD IF IT
WERE SOME OTHER CRIMINALIST 2 OR 3?
A YES.
Q SO WOULDN'T THE NEED TO OBSERVE WHAT THIS ENTRY
LEVEL PERSON WAS DOING MAKE PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE
SLOWER?
A NOT NECESSARILY.
Q WELL, IF YOU HAVE TO OBSERVE HER, YOU CAN'T BE
OFF DOING SOMETHING ELSE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT SLOWER?
A WHERE I WOULD LOSE TIME IN ONE AREA, I COULD
MAKE UP TIME IN ANOTHER AREA, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE
THERE.
Q WELL, IF THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THERE, BOTH OF
WHOM WERE TRAINED, IT WOULD GO FASTER, RIGHT?
A NOT NECESSARILY.
Q NO?
WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY
LEVEL PERSON IN A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WOULD PUT A LOT OF
PRESSURE ON HER?
A WAS I WORRIED ABOUT IT?
Q YEAH.
A I WAS AWARE OF IT.
Q WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL OBJECT. IT IS
IRRELEVANT WHETHER HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING
WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF A HIGH-PROFILE
CASE WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM WOULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON
YOU?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT WAS NOT A CONCERN TO ME AT THAT
TIME.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DIDN'T CROSS YOUR MIND?
A I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT, NO.
Q WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY
LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF CASE WOULD PRODUCE A GREATER
CHANCE OF MISTAKES? WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS THAT
MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM?
A THAT WOULD BE FOR ANY CASE, NOT JUST FOR ANY --
FOR A HIGH-PROFILE CASE.
IF THERE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON OR A PERSON
JUST STARTING OUT, I WOULD WATCH THEM MORE CLOSELY THAN
SOMEONE WHO IS EXPERIENCED.
Q SO IN YOUR MIND THAT MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM YOU
REALIZED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THERE WAS
A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES, RIGHT?
THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE
VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR REQUEST FOR HELP, THAT THERE WAS
A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BECAUSE YOU WERE WORKING WITH
AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AND THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE?
A YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE. COULD
WE GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME?
Q SURE.
I'M ASKING YOU, YOU HAVE -- WE AGREED THAT YOU
KNEW, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION
FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, RIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YOU KNEW THAT?
A YES.
Q YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD TO GO TO ANOTHER CRIME
SCENE WHERE THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE?
A YES.
Q YOU KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE PRESS PEOPLE AT
THESE CRIME SCENES?
A I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD -- I ASSUMED THERE
WOULD BE.
Q YOU ANTICIPATED IT, DIDN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE POLICE
BRASS AT THESE SCENES WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVEMENT?
A NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
Q DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT?
A WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "BRASS"?
Q HIGHER-UPS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE
SCENE WATCHING?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS VAGUE AS TO "HIGHER-UPS."
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
Q UMM, HIGH LEVEL OFFICERS IN THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK? DID YOU ANTICIPATE THAT
THEY MAY COME TO THE SCENES?
MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK CAN ALWAYS COME TO
A SCENE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE
THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING TO THESE TWO SCENES?
A THEY COULD HAVE COME, YES.
Q I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOUR STATE OF MIND WAS.
DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN
HERE?
A I KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO PUTTING THESE FACTORS TOGETHER, SHE IS AN
ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, IT IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, THERE WILL
BE PRESS AT THE SCENES, THERE WILL BE HIGH-RANKING PEOPLE
AT THE SCENES, DIDN'T YOU BECOME CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE
VANNATTER REFUSED YOUR REQUEST FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THERE
WOULD BE A GREATER POSSIBILITY OF MISTAKES HERE BECAUSE YOU
WERE USING AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE.
THE COURT: IT ASSUMES ONE FACT THAT IS NOT IN
EVIDENCE AS WELL, ALSO MISSTATES ONE PIECE OF THE EVIDENCE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID -- MAYBE THE WORD "REFUSED"
IS A PROBLEM HERE.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID NOT TAKE YOUR
SUGGESTION FOR EXTRA HELP, RIGHT?
A I DID NOT SUGGEST TO HIM --
MR. GOLDBERG: THE SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO
DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT EXTRA HELP WAS NEEDED, RIGHT?
A NO, I ASKED HIM.
Q YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED EXTRA HELP?
A YES.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU NO?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WE ARE FOCUSING ON THAT MOMENT.
NOW, AT THAT MOMENT, REVIEWING THE FACTORS
AGAIN, ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, PRESS CASE, HIGH-RANKING
OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, DIDN'T YOU THINK AT THAT MOMENT THAT
THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BEING
MADE UNLESS YOU GOT EXTRA HELP?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTIONS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THINKING ABOUT THAT WHEN
I WAS AT THE SCENE.
THE COURT: MADAM COURT REPORTER, WHAT IS YOUR
STATUS?
REPORTER OLSON: I'M FINE.
THE COURT: CAN YOU FINISH THE HOUR?
REPORTER OLSON: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE
NOT TO FOLLOW UP WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND SAY,
"DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I THINK THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO GET
MORE HELP IN THIS CASE"?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. ARGUMENTATIVE,
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS CASE
WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER SINCE JUNE 13TH?
A YES.
Q HAVE YOU DISCUSSED WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER
THIS ISSUE OF TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE WITH
AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON?
A NO.
Q THAT HASN'T ARISEN?
A I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH HIM.
Q HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER CRITICIZED YOU FOR
NOT TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE THERE AT THE SCENE WITH AN
ENTRY LEVEL PERSON?
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE
EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER
TELL YOU THAT HE DIDN'T THINK AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WAS THE
KIND OF PERSON HE WOULD LIKE WORKING ON THIS CASE?
A DID HE EVER STATE THAT?
Q YES. DID HE EVER STATE THAT TO YOU?
A NO.
Q NOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO PROCESS
A RED STAIN ON THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE
CRIME SCENE?
A YES.
Q BUT THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT
BRONCO, WAS THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN?
A NOT NECESSARILY.
Q WASN'T IT PROPER TO HAVE A YELLOW TAPE
SURROUNDING THAT BRONCO SO THAT NOBODY COULD GET TO IT,
SECURE IT AS BEING WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE?
A IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW
TAPE TO DENOTE A CRIME SCENE.
Q WELL, ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE TO PUT UP YELLOW
TAPE TO SURROUND IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE DON'T APPROACH IT AND TOUCH IT?
A IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT, YES.
Q WELL, IN YOUR JUDGMENT DIDN'T THE CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUIRE PUTTING A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO
PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THAT IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
A IN THE MORNING?
Q THAT MORNING.
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN'T THINK SO?
A NO.
Q WELL, WEREN'T THEY ASKING YOU TO TAKE A RED
STAIN OFF THE DOOR HANDLE OF THAT BRONCO?
A YES.
Q DIDN'T YOU TELL US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT
YOU LOOKED INTO THAT BRONCO AND YOU SAW WHAT YOU THOUGHT
WERE BLOOD STAINS IN THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q AND DID ANYBODY EXPRESS CONCERN TO YOU THAT
LATER THAT BRONCO WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE PROCESSED FOR
FINGERPRINTS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THAT
TIME TO PUT A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE DIDN'T WALK OVER AND TOUCH THAT CAR?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE WORD
"APPROPRIATE."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: AT THAT TIME IN THE MORNING THERE WAS
VIRTUALLY NOBODY OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS VERY
QUIET AND YELLOW TAPE MAY HAVE ATTRACTED EVEN MORE PEOPLE,
SO THAT -- THE USE OF IT WASN'T NECESSARY. THERE WAS
NOBODY AROUND.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT
INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S
ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q THAT HAS BEEN A LONG-STANDING POLICY IN THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, HASN'T IT?
A YES.
Q YOU ARE AWARE OF A MEMO FROM A PERSON NAMED
DARRYL GATES? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MEMO BY DARRYL GATES
ABOUT THIS ISSUE?
A I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MEMO, BUT I -- I AM
AWARE OF ONE THAT TOUCHES THAT TOPIC.
Q YOU HAVE THAT MANUAL -- WHO IS DARRYL GATES,
INCIDENTALLY? I AM NOT FROM AROUND HERE.
A DARRYL GATES IS THE PREVIOUS POLICE CHIEF.
Q HE WAS A POLICE CHIEF HERE FOR A LONG TIME,
WASN'T HE?
A YES.
Q AND WERE -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN YOUR EIGHT
YEARS AT SID HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN
CRIMINALISTS WHO GO TO INVESTIGATE THE SCENES AND THE
DETECTIVES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENES IN TERMS OF
PROPER PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE BEEN WITH SID FOR TEN YEARS.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?
A AND I AM NOT AWARE OF CONFLICTS AS YOU HAVE
STATED.
Q IN YOUR TEN YEARS AT SID YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A
DISAGREEMENT WITH A DETECTIVE AT A CRIME SCENE AS TO HOW
EVIDENCE SHOULD BE GATHERED?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YEAH.
A IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY SUGGESTIONS --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. SCHECK. YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO STAND SOME PLACE WHERE YOU DON'T BLOCK THE JURORS.
MR. SCHECK: OH, I'M VERY SORRY.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY
SUGGESTIONS TO THE DETECTIVE AND I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE
DETECTIVES COOPERATE WITH MY SUGGESTIONS.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN
THIS CASE, DID IT?
A HOW DO YOU MEAN?
Q WELL, YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE
VANNATTER THAT YOU WERE GOING TO NEED MORE HELP AND HE
DIDN'T TAKE IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: MAYBE IT IS EASIER -- GIVE ME A MINUTE,
YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS EASIER TO FIND IT IN MY BOOK.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I SHOW YOU THAT DOCUMENT.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IS A DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE RELATIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE CRIMINALISTS?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IT INDICATES THAT THE INVESTIGATORS ARE
SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I OBJECT FOR A MOMENT?
I DON'T THINK IT IS PROPER FOR COUNSEL TO READ FROM THE
DOCUMENT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT
INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S
ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE?
A SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF
EVIDENCE?
Q YES.
A YES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT POLICE MANUAL, ARE YOU NOT?
A I HAVEN'T COMMITTED IT TO MEMORY.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A -- ANY REQUIREMENT THAT
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PEOPLE FROM SID TO INSTRUCT ALL
OFFICERS IN THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING CURRENT METHODS OF
COLLECTING, MARKING AND PRESERVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE?
A I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION YOU ARE READING THAT
FROM.
Q YES. BUT IT SOUND -- DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU
LIKE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR --
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY IS?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: IT -- YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU WERE SAYING TO US THAT
YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO
PROTECT THE BRONCO IN THE MORNING?
A YES.
Q BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT
OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET IN THE MORNING?
A YES.
Q WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT LATER IN THE
DAY THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE GOING TO THAT SCENE?
A YES.
Q I MEAN, YOU KNEW AT THIS POINT THAT ONE OF THE
VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WAS THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. SIMPSON?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO "THIS POINT."
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AT 7:15 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT
ROCKINGHAM YOU KNEW THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE
WAS MR. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE AT MR. SIMPSON'S
HOUSE?
A I KNEW THAT WAS HIS RESIDENCE.
Q DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDED
MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT?
A I DON'T RECALL IF HE RELAYED THAT TO ME OR NOT.
Q HE MIGHT HAVE?
A HE MIGHT HAVE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID NOT
ANTICIPATE THAT AS THE DAY WENT ON THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE
GOING TO THAT ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE AND WOULD BE AROUND THAT
SCENE?
A I ANTICIPATED THAT THE BRONCO WOULD HAVE BEEN
TOWED AWAY AND PUT INTO IMPOUND.
Q YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM FROM AROUND 7, WAS IT 15
OR 7:20?
A 7:10.
Q 7:10 IN THE MORNING UNTIL YOU LEFT AT WHAT
TIME?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q AROUND 10:15, TEN O'CLOCK?
A I LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY TEN O'CLOCK.
Q TEN O'CLOCK.
SO YOU ARE THERE TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES? I
THINK I HAVE GOT THAT ONE RIGHT.
A TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES, YES.
Q AND DURING THAT TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES WERE
MORE PEOPLE ARRIVING AT THE SCENE AND WATCHING WHAT WAS
GOING ON?
A NO.
Q IN THOSE THREE HOURS YOU STILL -- WHEN YOU LEFT
THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE ON THAT -- SURROUNDING THAT
BRONCO, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND DIDN'T IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT A
SOUND PROCEDURE, AS YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM?
A TWO OFFICERS WERE IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THAT
EVIDENCE AND YELLOW TAPE IS NOT A -- IS NOT AS GOOD A
PROTECTION AS AN ACTUAL OFFICER.
Q ISN'T THE BEST POSSIBLE PROTECTION THE STANDARD
PROTECTION, TO HAVE YELLOW TAPES AND OFFICERS?
A THAT IS ONE METHOD.
Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT -- WITHDRAWN.
WAS IT YOUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A
YELLOW TAPE SHOULD BE PUT AROUND THAT BRONCO?
A NO.
Q WELL, AREN'T YOU THE PERSON THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
ESSENTIALLY BE CALLING THE SHOTS WITH RESPECT TO HOW
EVIDENCE IS GATHERED?
A WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE IS GATHERED, YES.
Q WELL, ISN'T THE PROTECTION OF IMPORTANT ITEMS
OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THAT PROVINCE, THE GATHERING OF
EVIDENCE, PROTECTING IT WITH YELLOW TAPE?
A THAT -- IN MY OPINION THAT IS THE -- UNDER THE
PURVIEW OF THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE.
Q SO THAT IS NOT YOUR DECISION; THAT IS THE
OFFICER'S DECISION?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IS WHY YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT, BECAUSE
IT WAS THEIR DECISION?
A IF I THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY, I WOULD HAVE
SUGGESTED IT TO THEM.
Q YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY?
A NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE -- WELL, AT
WHAT TIME? AT WHAT TIME WOULD IT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO
PUT YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO?
A WHEN THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE AROUND THAN MAY
HAVE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PREFERABLE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU LEFT, DID YOU MAKE THE SUGGESTION TO
ANY OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, YOU KNOW, "GUYS, MAYBE YOU
SHOULD PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO SOON"?
THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING, DID YOU?
THE COURT: "GUYS."
MR. SCHECK: WHAT?
THE COURT: "GUYS."
MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY.
Q DID YOU, WHEN YOU LEFT, TELL ANY MALE OR FEMALE
OFFICERS AT THE SCENE THAT PERHAPS IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO
PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO?
A I DID NOT STATE THAT, NO.
Q WASN'T THAT A MISTAKE?
A I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A MISTAKE OR
NOT.
Q AT 7:50, AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, YOU SPOKE TO GREG MATHESON, DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU -- GREG MATHESON IS A SUPERVISOR AT
SID?
A YES.
Q AND YOU -- AT THAT TIME DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN
TO HIM THAT YOU HAD TWO CRIME SCENES?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO HIM THAT THE VICTIMS
AT BUNDY, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD BEEN THERE
SINCE THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND YOU WERE NOW TALKING TO
HIM AT 7:50 IN THE MORNING?
A I DID SPEAK TO HIM REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE -- AS I KNEW THEM. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT
CONVERSATION.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN THAT THE
CRIMINALISTS MAY NOT GET TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE
THE CORONERS?
A I DON'T THINK I EXPRESSED THAT TO HIM, NO.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN ABOUT USING AN
ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO WAS JUST STARTING OUT TO DO THE WORK
IN THIS CASE?
A I TOLD HIM WHO WAS WITH ME.
Q DID HE TELL -- DID YOU TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT
THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE OF MISS MAZZOLA?
A I DON'T THINK I HAD TO.
Q AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE HAD
KNOWLEDGE OF MISS MAZZOLA'S EXPERIENCE LEVEL?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE FACT THAT YOU HAD
SUGGESTED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM OR
NOT.
Q DID YOU --
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL -- I'M SORRY,
COUNSEL.
I WILL MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THAT ASSUMES A
FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS'
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, BUT THE ANSWER
WAS SUCH THAT -- THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU -- DID YOU SUGGEST TO
GREG MATHESON THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT OR NOT. I DON'T
THINK I DID.
Q DID HE ASK YOU IF YOU NEEDED MORE HELP?
A HE MAY HAVE.
Q AND DID YOU SAY NO?
A AT THE TIME I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T THINK I DID.
Q NOW --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD TURN NOW TO THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM FOR A MINUTE.
YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RED
BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU OBSERVED?
A YES.
Q NOW, DID YOU -- IN TERMS OF HOW YOU AND MISS
MAZZOLA APPROACHED THIS, DID YOU PERFORM ANY WHAT IS KNOWN
AS PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD DROPS?
MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL OBJECT BASED UPON THE EARLIER
RULINGS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DID?
A IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THEN IN TERMS OF APPROACHING THESE RED STAINS,
THERE IS ONE THAT I THINK IS ITEM NO. 1, THE ONE ON THE
DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND BEFORE YOU SWATCHED THAT STAIN YOU DID A
PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND BEFORE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF THAT STAIN YOU
DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT?
A I'M NOT SURE WHICH ORDER THAT OCCURRED IN.
Q WELL, WITH RESPECT TO, UMM, THE NEXT -- THIS IS
ITEM NO. 4, CORRECT, THAT IS A RED STAIN THAT YOU FOUND?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU FIRST GO OUT AND MEASURE THAT BEFORE
YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF IT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q MEASURE ITS LOCATION?
A I'M NOT SURE IF THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN FIRST OR
THE MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN FIRST.
Q DID YOU DO THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON NO. 4 BEFORE
YOU TOOK THE PICTURE?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU DID THAT WITH ITEM NO. 5 AS WELL, FIRST
THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST AND THEN THE PICTURE?
A YES.
Q AND ITEM NO. 6, I BELIEVE?
A YES.
Q AND ITEM NO. 7?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.
Q AND ITEM NO. 8?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q AND INCIDENTALLY, ON THE -- WHEN YOU WENT TO
BUNDY AND YOU -- YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WERE DEALING WITH
ITEMS 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52, DID YOU FOLLOW ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME PROCESS?
A ESSENTIALLY, YES.
Q SO YOU DID THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS ON THOSE
ITEMS FIRST AND THEN THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN?
A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ORDER.
Q IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY?
A YES.
Q NOW, IN TERMS OF THESE RED STAINS THAT YOU
FOUND, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PATTERN OF RED STAINS THAT
YOU FOUND WAS LEADING FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE BRONCO OR
THE BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE?
A YES.
Q AND THERE IS -- WHY DON'T WE TRY USING THIS --
ONE OF THESE DIAGRAMS FIRST.
LET ME START WITH -- LET ME START WITH ONE OF
THE PROSECUTION'S BOARDS, IF I MIGHT.
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAYBE I COULD HELP.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, THIS IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT WHICH?
MR. SCHECK: YES. IT IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT
NO. 169, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
PROCEED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY.
MR. FUNG, COULD YOU STEP DOWN HERE WITH ME FOR
ONE MINUTE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q NOW, YOU FOUND ITEM NO. 4, A RED STAIN,
SOMEWHERE, UMM --
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST HAVE A CHANCE
TO TALK TO COUNSEL FOR A SECOND?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE JURORS ARE HAVING
TROUBLE SEEING. IT IS TOO LOW. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED. HE
NEEDS TO MOVE IT UP.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, NOW YOU FOUND DROP
NO. 4 ON ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
UMM, AND YOU MEASURED THAT TO BE I GUESS 83
NINE (SIC) INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH CURB, TWO FEET WEST OF
THE SOUTH CURB?
A YES.
Q APPROXIMATELY WHERE I'M POINTING HERE ON THE
DIAGRAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING).
Q THEN YOU FOUND A RED STAIN THAT YOU IDENTIFIED
AS NO. 5. COULD YOU POINT APPROXIMATELY TO WHERE THAT IS
ON THE DIAGRAM. IF IT HELPS --
A I'M REFERRING TO A SKETCH.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN FACT, IS IT THIS SKETCH THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT
HERE, (INDICATING)?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
THAT IS THE SKETCH THAT YOU FILLED OUT -- THIS
WAS FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THIS WAS RECOVERED, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO COME OVER YOU CAN LOOK AT MY
SKETCH AND I WILL JUST HOLD IT OUT FOR YOU.
A APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING).
Q APPROXIMATELY HERE? THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE
GATE, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THEN YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6. COULD YOU SHOW US
WHERE THAT IS?
A (INDICATING).
Q WHICH IS --
A APPROXIMATE.
Q APPROXIMATELY.
NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE WERE ABOUT
FOUR OR FIVE FEET BETWEEN DROPS NO. 4 AND 5?
A APPROXIMATELY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IF ONE WERE TO START ON A LINE TO THE PLACE
THAT I'M POINTING HERE, WHAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT IN
TERMS OF THE GATE? WHAT DIRECTION WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT
AS BEING ON THIS DIAGRAM?
THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE GATE?
A THIS IS NORTHWEST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
Q NORTHWEST IS AS IT IS DEPICTED ON THIS DIAGRAM,
I GUESS?
A AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE FENCE OR THE GATE?
Q JUST THE GATE?
A THE GATE ITSELF?
Q ON THIS LINE, YEAH.
IF ONE WERE TO BASICALLY --
A RIGHT HERE -- RIGHT HERE WOULD BE THE NORTH END
OF THE GATE, (INDICATING).
Q OKAY.
FROM THE NORTH END OF THE GATE, IF ONE WERE TO
WALK IN A LINE TO THE AREA WHERE THERE IS -- THE GARAGE IS
DEPICTED, OKAY, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
A YOU ARE SAYING FROM HERE, (INDICATING), TO
HERE, (INDICATING)?
Q NO, FROM HERE TO THE PATHWAY, (INDICATING).
A FROM HERE TO HERE, (INDICATING)?
Q THAT'S RIGHT.
IF YOU WERE TO DRAW A LINE, WALK ON A LINE FROM
THAT ENTRYWAY TO THE GATE DIRECTLY TO THE PATHWAY, OKAY,
HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT ROUGHLY TO BE?
A I DON'T RECALL THE DIMENSIONS. I WOULD HAVE TO
SEE SOMETHING.
Q HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER DISCUSSED A THEORY
WITH YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON CAME HOME IN THIS CASE AND WENT
-- OPENED THE GATE, ALL RIGHT, AND THEN WALKED ALONG THE
SOUTH PATHWAY TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IT IS
ALSO HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, JUST GOING ON A LINE, ALL
RIGHT, FROM WHERE YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, TO THE SOUTH
PATHWAY, RIGHT --
A YES.
Q -- YOU DIDN'T FIND -- THAT IS ABOUT HOW MANY
FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE?
A I TOLD YOU I DON'T -- I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN
ESTIMATE.
Q WELL, THE DISTANCE FROM THE GATE TO WHERE THE
GLOVE WAS RECOVERED WAS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET?
A FROM THE GATE TO THE GLOVE?
Q YEAH.
A I -- I WILL HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
THE COURT: ARE YOU TESTIFYING, MR. SCHECK?
MR. SCHECK: I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION.
THE COURT: HE SAID I WILL HAVE TO TAKE WHAT YOU SAY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: TELL YOU WHAT, LET'S TRY IT
THIS WAY:
I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS DOCUMENT AS PEOPLE'S
-- PEOPLE'S -- AS DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER.
THE COURT: 1072.
(DEFT'S 1072 FOR ID = DOCUMENT)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT
BEFORE, MR. FUNG?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND WHAT IS IT?
A THIS IS A SKETCH -- NO, IT IS A -- IT IS A
SURVEYOR'S DRAWING OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT GIVES DISTANCES WITH RESPECT TO, UMM
-- HOW FAR IT IS FROM ROCKINGHAM AVENUE TO THE GARAGE AND
THE GUEST HOUSE AREAS?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND THAT WAS DRAWN BY A SURVEYOR? YOU ARE
AWARE OF THIS?
A YES.
Q AND AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED IT IS ACCURATE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT WHAT THIS WITNESS' CONCERN
WAS.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, DOES THIS PERSON WORK
WITH YOU AT SID?
A NOT ANY MORE.
Q DID AT THE TIME HE DID THIS?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THAT WAS BEING
PREPARED?
A FOR --
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT IT WAS BEING -- EVENTUALLY IT
WOULD BE PREPARED?
MR. SCHECK: YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. I WOULD MAKE
A MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: PART OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES
AT SID IN SOME CASES IS TO HAVE SUCH A SURVEYOR COME OUT
AND MEASURE THE SCENE?
A IN SOME CASES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND IN THIS CASE THAT WAS DONE?
A YES.
Q IT IS DONE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT
SID WHEN APPROPRIATE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO
STRIKE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY FOUNDATION, PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
AND IN APPROPRIATE CASES IT IS -- IN THE
REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT SID THESE KIND OF SURVEYOR'S
DIAGRAMS ARE PREPARED?
A YES.
Q AND THE PERSON THAT PREPARES IT, TO YOUR
KNOWLEDGE, HAS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THOSE MEASUREMENTS
ACCURATE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, YES.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OFFER THIS DIAGRAM
AND ASK THAT IT BE PUT ON THE ELMO.
THE COURT: DO THE MEASUREMENTS ON THAT APPEAR TO BE
ACCURATE?
THE WITNESS: THEY APPEAR TO BE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
NOW, LOOKING AT THAT, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE GATE AND WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND
IS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT AS IT CALLS FOR
SPECULATION. THE WITNESS CAN ONLY TESTIFY WHAT HE SEES.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU TOOK MEASUREMENTS, DID YOU
NOT, MR. FUNG, ON JUNE 13TH?
A YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WITH THE -- LET ME ASK YOU:
IN TERMS OF THIS DIAGRAM OVER HERE,
(INDICATING), THIS IS THE -- I'M POINTING NOW AND I'M
REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 169, THIS IS THE GARAGE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING), YOU TELL ME,
THIS IS THE -- WHERE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE GUEST HOUSE AS
DEPICTED IN THIS DIAGRAM? WOULD IT BE THE AREA I'M
POINTING RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART IS THE GUEST
HOUSE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON
THE ELMO, OKAY, DO YOU SEE A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES
"GUEST ROOMS"?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE
SEES IN REGARD TO THE GUEST ROOMS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU LOCATE THAT FOR US ON
PEOPLE'S 169?
A IT APPEARS TO BE THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING).
Q WHERE DOES IT START?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THE AREA DESIGNATED "GUEST ROOMS," WOULD THAT
BEGIN AS WHAT IS MARKED ON PEOPLE'S 169 AS THE AREA THAT
SAYS "OFFICE"?
A THIS DIAGRAM APPEARS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM
THE DIAGRAM UP ON THE BOARD.
Q IN WHAT RESPECT?
A THERE IS NO INDENTATION IN THIS AREA HERE,
(INDICATING).
MR. SCHECK: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS
IS INDICATING THAT THERE IS AN INDENTATION BETWEEN THE --
I GUESS THE HORIZONTAL AREA BETWEEN WHAT IS THE OFFICE AND
THE AREA WHERE THERE IS A CALL OUT FOR NO. 14.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE
HE INDICATED THAT THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION ON
169, BUT THERE IS ONE ON THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT THAT YOU SEE
PROJECTED ON THE ELMO?
A YES.
Q WHICH IS ACCURATE?
A I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO PHOTOGRAPHS OR VISIT
THE SCENE AGAIN. I DON'T RECALL.
Q BUT OTHER THAN THAT INDENTATION, I'M JUST
TRYING TO GET YOU TO TELL US IF -- WHERE THE AREA THAT IS
INDICATED AS "GUEST ROOMS" ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO IS ON
PEOPLE'S 169?
A THIS WOULD BE VERY ROUGH. APPROXIMATELY IN
THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING).
Q INDICATING THE AREA BY WHAT IS MARKED AS
"OFFICE"; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
THE COURT: ON 169.
MR. SCHECK: ON 169.
Q NOW, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WORKED TOGETHER TO
MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS ON JUNE 13TH?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT OTHERS WOULD
LATER BE RELYING ON YOUR MEASUREMENTS AS TO WHERE VARIOUS
PIECES OF EVIDENCE WERE FOUND?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU KNEW THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT LATER IF
PEOPLE WERE TO MAKE ANALYSES -- SUBSEQUENT ANALYSES OF THE
SCENE?
A IT COULD BE BECOME A FACTOR, YES.
Q JUST LIKE AT BUNDY YOU MADE MEASUREMENTS AS TO
WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNEW THAT THOSE MEASUREMENTS WOULD BE
RELIED UPON LATER FOR ALL KIND OF ANALYSIS?
A POSSIBLY, YES.
Q NOW, ON JUNE 13TH YOU MEASURED THE GLOVE AS
BEING LOCATED 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST
HOUSE.
NOW, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THE WEST WALL OF
THE GUEST HOUSE IS?
A THE GUEST HOUSE?
Q YES.
A I BELIEVE MY DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION WAS
118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL.
Q DOESN'T YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION READ "THE
GLOVE" -- UNDER "LOCATION OF ITEM," "118 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE
SOUTH WALL"?
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE?
A THAT IS WHAT CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WROTE, YES.
Q OH.
WELL, 100 -- LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE
ELMO, 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE,
WHERE WOULD THAT BE ON THE DIAGRAM IN THE ELMO?
A THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF REFERENCE THAT IS
REFERRED TO --
Q I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE.
MR. SCHECK: MOVE TO STRIKE HIS ANSWER AS BEING
NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MY QUESTION, MR. FUNG, IS FROM
LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, WHERE WOULD A LOCATION
118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT
FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL BE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, THE MEASUREMENT HERE
IS WRONG, ISN'T IT?
A AS YOU ARE INTERPRETING IT IT IS WRONG, BUT
FROM WHERE I KNOW THE POINT OF REFERENCE IS, THE
MEASUREMENT IS CORRECT OR VERY CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS.
Q WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY:
IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE ENTRY HERE OF 118
FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT
FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL, THAT ENTRY, AS
WRITTEN, IS AN INCORRECT ENTRY?
A THAT IS INCORRECT.
MR. GOLDBERG: THERE WAS NO --
THE WITNESS: YOUR STATEMENT IS INCORRECT.
MR. GOLDBERG: EXCUSE ME, MR. FUNG.
I OBJECT. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY TO THAT FACT.
MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
A YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT ENTRY IS INCORRECT.
Q WELL, THE ENTRY ITSELF, IF ONE WERE TO MEASURE
118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT
WOULD BE A LOCATION, UMM, THAT IS FAR BEYOND THIS AIR
CONDITIONER ALL THE WAY SOMEWHERE INTO THE PLANTING AREA
OUT BACK, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF ONE WERE TO CALL THE
GUEST HOUSE -- AS I THINK YOU PREVIOUSLY DID, THIS OFFICE
AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL --
Q BY MR. SCHECK: -- AS DEPICTED ON 169 --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HAVE SUSTAINED FOUR
IRRELEVANCY OBJECTIONS IN A ROW AS TO THAT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT MISS
MAZZOLA, WHEN SHE MADE AN ENTRY HERE, WAS INCORRECT?
A I AM NOT SAYING THAT.
Q YOU ARE SAYING THAT -- WELL, WHAT WAS THE
GUEST HOUSE THEN?
A THE GUEST HOUSE IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OR
AREA TO LOCATE WHERE THE GLOVE WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST
WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE?
A NO.
Q IS THAT YOUR REFERENCE POINT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE.
THE WITNESS: NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
A WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE GUEST HOUSE IN THAT
ENTRY DEPICTS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE GLOVE WAS.
THE 818 (SIC) FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL IS FROM THIS POINT
HERE, (INDICATING).
Q SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST
WALL AND THEN GUEST HOUSE THAT FOLLOWS IT? THAT IS NOT THE
WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, HE IS MISREADING WHAT THE
WITNESS IS --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: COULD WE PUT UP ON THE ELMO THE ENTRY
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT?
OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "118 FEET
EAST OF THE WEST WALL"?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. IT DOESN'T SAY "OF."
MR. SCHECK: I THINK THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
Q YOU SEE THE ENTRY WHERE IT SAYS "LOCATION OF
ITEM"?
A YES, I DO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DOESN'T IT READ ACROSS THE TOP LINE "118
FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR
INCHES SOUTH OF SOUTH WALL"?
A IT DOES STATE THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US NOW IS THAT THE WEST
WALL YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS NOT THE WEST WALL OF THE
GUEST HOUSE?
A THE WEST WALL I'M REFERRING TO IS THIS WALL
HERE, (INDICATING).
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: INDICATING THE WALL -- EXCUSE ME.
INDICATING THE WALL OF THE GARAGE ON PEOPLE'S
169.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WAS ABOUT TO
INDICATE THAT.
Q SO THE WEST WALL THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE
REFERRING TO IN THAT ENTRY WAS THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE;
NOT THE GUEST HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND IF ONE WERE TO READ JUST LITERALLY WHAT IT
SAYS THERE, "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST
HOUSE" AND START MEASURING FROM THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT WOULD
BE AN INCORRECT ENTRY, AN INCORRECT LOCATION FOR WHERE THE
GLOVE WAS FOUND?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOTES AND THAT IS
WHY I PREPARE A PROPERTY REPORT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT IS -- IF
ONE WERE TO LITERALLY READ IT, THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT
IDENTIFICATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS THERE.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHILE WE ARE HERE.
Q NOW, IF ONE GOES ON A LINE FROM WHERE YOU LAST
FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, ALONG THIS SOUTH WALL, ALL RIGHT,
THIS IS --
THE COURT: COUNSEL, IS THERE A WALL THERE?
MR. SCHECK: WELL, IT IS ACTUALLY SHRUBBERY, THANK
YOU.
Q ALONG THIS SHRUBBERY ON A LINE TO THE SOUTH
WALKWAY, IS THAT A DRIVEWAY AREA?
A YES, IT IS.
Q ON THAT LINE YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q RIGHT?
A FROM APPROXIMATELY THIS POINT TO THIS POINT, I
FOUND NO RED STAINS IN THIS LOWER AREA.
Q NO RED STAINS IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING),
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG: FOR THE RECORD PERHAPS --
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS THE AREA FROM THE
DRIVEWAY TO WHERE THE PINK ENDS ON PEOPLE'S 169?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS FROM THE
"Y" IN THE WORD "DRIVEWAY" OVER TO THE RIGHT-HAND -- ON
THIS EXHIBIT -- THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF WHERE THE
PINK ENDS, AND THEN I THINK HE ALSO POINTED TO A POINT THAT
IS JUST ABOVE THE "Y" IN WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A TRIANGLE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT -- WHAT MR. GOLDBERG IS
SAYING CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THERE IS NOW AN AREA THAT IS IN YELLOW,
OKAY?
A YES.
Q NOW, AS ONE WALKS DOWN IN THE AREA, THAT IS
YELLOW ON PEOPLE'S 169, THERE IS ABOUT FOUR STEPS?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN THERE IS A CEMENT AREA, CEMENT WALKWAY
AREA?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND ON JUNE 13TH THERE WERE MUCH FEWER LEAVES
IN THAT CEMENT WALKWAY AREA THAN THERE WAS IN THE NARROWER
WALKWAY AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO AND THE AREA WHERE THE
GLOVE WAS RECOVERED, RIGHT?
A I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHICH HAD MORE -- MORE
LEAVES. I DO RECALL THERE WAS AREAS THAT HAD A LOT OF
LEAVES AND AREAS THAT HAD LESS LEAVES, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE A
NOTE OF IT.
Q WELL, IN TERMS OF THE -- THERE WERE MORE TREES
OVERHANGING THE AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO NOW THAT STARTS
WITH -- WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THIS POINT, (INDICATING)?
HOW DO YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT? DO YOU WANT TO
CALL IT -- WHAT DEMARCATION DO YOU WANT TO USE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THIS POINT, I'M OVER HERE, THAT IS JUST TO THE
LEFT OF THE CALL OUT BOX THAT IS 14?
A I --
Q THAT IS WHERE THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IS,
ELECTRICAL DOOR?
A YEAH. THERE IS SOME KIND OF BOX.
Q ALL RIGHT.
FROM THE ELECTRICAL DOOR BOX THERE IS A NARROW
AREA, CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q THERE IS MORE TREES OVERHANGING THAT AREA?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.
Q AND THERE WERE MORE LEAVES THERE, WEREN'T
THERE, ON JUNE 13TH, THAN THERE WAS FROM THE CEMENT AREA
THAT STARTS WITH THE GARAGE AND GOES UP TO THE POINT WHERE
THE ELECTRICAL BOX IS?
A I -- AGAIN, I CAN'T RECALL THE AMOUNT OF
LEAVES.
Q AND YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS FROM THE POINT
WHERE THE YELLOW BEGINS ON THE GARAGE AT -- ON PEOPLE'S 169
TO THE POINT WHERE YOU FOUND THE GLOVE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT. NONE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q NO RED STAINS?
A ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF?
Q ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND UMM, IN THE AREA, UMM, OF THE AIR
CONDITIONER, UMM, THERE IS A WALL?
A THERE IS A WALL, YES.
Q AND IT IS MADE OF A STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL IS THE KIND OF
THING WHERE IF YOU BRUSH AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, IF ONE
BRUSHES AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, THREADS OR FIBERS CAN GET
STUCK TO IT?
A THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
Q OR YOU CAN GET AN ABRASION IF ONE WERE TO BANG
UP AGAINST IT WITH BARE SKIN, THAT KIND OF STUCCO CAN CAUSE
AN ABRASION ON ONE'S HAND?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU FOUND NO HAIR OR FIBER
ON THE STUCCO WALL AREA NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER ON JUNE
13TH?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU EXAMINED THE FENCE IN THE AREA WHERE THE
GLOVE WAS RECOVERED?
A YES, I DID.
Q YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT FENCE, NO HAIR OR
FIBERS ON THAT FENCE?
A I DID NOT SEE ANY.
Q YOU DID NOT SEE ANY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY THAT
SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE GONE OVER THAT FENCE?
A YES.
Q AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY
MIGHT HAVE BANGED INTO THAT WALL?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THAT STUCCO WALL?
A I LOOKED -- I DID LOOK AT THE WALL, YES.
Q SO YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY BECAUSE
THE DETECTIVES WERE INSTRUCTING YOU TO DO SO?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS A COMPOUND QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, IT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT AREA
-- WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY THE DETECTIVES TO EXAMINE THAT
AREA CAREFULLY?
A YES.
Q AND YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT STUCCO WALL?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK WE ARE FINISHED WITH THIS
DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT THE SIMPSON
RESIDENCE?
A I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OR NOT.
Q SO YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DEW
ON THE LAWN OR WATER FROM THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU INDICATED ON DIRECT
EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WENT BACK AND
RECOVERED THE GLOVE, ITEM NO. 9?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WAS DOING ALL THIS
INVESTIGATING ON THE WALKWAY LEADING UP TO ITEM NO. 9?
MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: INVESTIGATION IN WHAT SENSE?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR RED
STAINS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR FIBERS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR
CLUES ALONG THE SOUTH WALKWAY LEADING UP TO THE GLOVE?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU WENT TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION, WHO
ACCOMPANIED YOU?
A DIFFERENT PEOPLE ACCOMPANIED ME AT DIFFERENT
TIMES.
Q ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU GO THERE?
A APPROXIMATELY FOUR, FOUR THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
Q WHO WAS THERE THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT?
A THE FIRST TIME WAS WITH MY -- WAS WITH THE
WALK-THROUGH AND I DON'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO WERE BOTH AT THAT
WALK-THROUGH AT THAT TIME OR JUST DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR
JUST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT ONE OF THE DETECTIVES DID
ESCORT ME BACK THERE ON MY WALK-THROUGH.
Q THIS WAS ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU GOT TO THE
SCENE?
A MAYBE FIVE MINUTES INTO THE SCENE.
Q AND WAS MISS MAZZOLA WITH YOU?
A I DON'T RECALL IF SHE WAS WITH ME OR NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID YOU THEN GO BACK AND
LOOK AT THAT AREA AGAIN, WALKING TOWARD THE GLOVE?
A UNTIL THE NEXT TIME I WENT TO THAT AREA?
Q YEAH.
A I DON'T HAVE A --
Q ABOUT HOW MANY MINUTES?
A I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD ESTIMATION.
Q WHO WENT WITH YOU?
A THE NEXT TIME WAS WITH MISS MAZZOLA.
Q JUST THE TWO OF YOU?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.
Q AND YOU WERE CAREFULLY WALKING DOWN THAT PATH
LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q AND AT THAT TIME WERE YOU TAKING MEASUREMENTS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAD NOT -- HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE
GLOVE?
A WITHIN FEET -- FEET OF IT.
Q HOW MANY?
A ONE OR TWO OR THREE.
Q AND HAD YOU NOTICED THE BLUE OBJECT ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AS ITEM
NO. 10?
A I MAY HAVE SEEN IT, BUT I DIDN'T IDENTIFY IT AS
BEING RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND TELL US ABOUT THE THIRD TIME YOU WENT.
A THE THIRD TIME I WENT WAS WITH THE
PHOTOGRAPHER.
Q AND WHO WAS THAT? MR. ROKAHR?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND WHEN HE WAS WALKING DOWN THAT PATH, DID HE
BANG INTO THE AIR CONDITIONER?
A NO.
Q YOU DON'T RECALL THAT?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT WAS MR. ROKAHR WENT WITH YOU AND YOU
DIRECTED HIM TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB? YOU ARE SUPPOSED
TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY?
A YES.
Q AND THEN THE FOURTH TIME YOU WENT THERE, YOU
WENT WITH WHOM?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS MYSELF.
I WENT BY MYSELF AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE FENCE.
Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE WALKING DOWN THE
SOUTH WALKWAY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WALKING ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE?
A THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER IT.
Q THE TWO OF YOU WERE WALKING PARALLEL?
A WELL, WE ENDED UP AT THE OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE
FENCE, YES.
Q AND THEN IT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT POINTED
OUT THIS BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE?
A I THINK HE HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE WAS
ONE BEFORE THAT POINT AND HE WENT OVER TO -- AT THAT POINT
TO HELP ME COLLECT IT SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO WALK ALL THE
WAY AROUND.
Q WAIT A SECOND. YOU ARE THE CRIMINALIST, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
VOLUNTEERED, HE RUSHED DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY -- HE WALKED
DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY, RIGHT?
A I DON'T KNOW IF HE RUSHED OR WALKED.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HE WAS THE FELLOW THAT WENT DOWN THERE AND HE
PICKED UP THE EVIDENCE?
A AT MY REQUEST.
Q WHAT ABOUT MISS MAZZOLA? YOU COULDN'T USE HER?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION
MISS MAZZOLA WAS PICKING UP THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, 7 -- OR THE
RED STAINS 7 AND 8 AT THAT TIME.
Q WELL, DID YOU PERFORM ANY MEASUREMENTS AT THAT
POINT ON THE -- THAT BLUE ITEM, THAT BLUE PLASTIC ITEM?
A YES.
Q WELL, DID YOU MEASURE IT -- HOW DID YOU DO
THAT? YOU DID IT WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A THE PLASTIC THING -- CONTAINER WAS ALMOST
PARALLEL TO THE GLOVE, SO I MADE AN ESTIMATE AS TO ITS
LOCATION.
Q AND YOU DIDN'T GO AROUND THE FENCE TO TAKE A
LOOK AT ANYTHING AROUND THAT PLASTIC CONTAINER? YOU LEFT
THAT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A YES, I DID.
Q BUT IT IS YOUR JOB, I GUESS -- WELL, ISN'T IT
YOUR JOB AS THE CRIMINALIST TO BE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YOU ARE THE ONE IN CHARGE OF GATHERING THE
EVIDENCE?
A I AM IN CHARGE OF GATHERING EVIDENCE.
Q AND DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WEAR ANY RUBBER
GLOVES WHEN HE WAS PICKING UP THAT BLUE PLASTIC BAG?
A I BELIEVE HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD THAT I ALSO
USE SOMETIMES.
Q WELL, YOU ARE SAYING HE DIDN'T HAVE GLOVES?
A I'M SAYING HE USED A SCOOP METHOD.
Q WELL, IN USING THE SCOOP METHOD, DO YOU KNOW
IF HE HAD GLOVES?
A I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD GLOVES. I DON'T THINK
HE DID.
Q DO YOU KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
A NO, I DON'T. I DON'T THINK HE DID, THOUGH.
Q WAIT A SECOND.
YOU DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
A I'M NOT SURE --
Q YOU DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF
WHETHER HE HAD GLOVES OR NOT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME
FOR A BREAK.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR
RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION.
PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY
DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU,
DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO
THE CASE.
SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30.
MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
YOU ARE ORDERED TO BE HERE AT 1:30.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, 1:30.
(AT 12:02 P.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995
1:40 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.
BACK ON THE RECORD ON THE SIMPSON MATTER.
ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHAT ABOUT BEFORE WE ASK
THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
COUNSEL, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 3:15 FOR
OUR BREAK, CHANGE COURT REPORTERS, GO TO 4:00 AND THEN TAKE
UP THE MOTION REGARDING THE CORONER'S REPORTS AT ABOUT
4:10.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE
SEATED.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED
BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS
STAND, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. DENNIS FUNG IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND
UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK.
DENNIS FUNG,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER
OATH, SIR.
AND, MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
JURY.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. SCHECK:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG.
A GOOD MORNING.
Q MR. FUNG, WHEN WE LEFT, YOU WERE TELLING US
ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTING ITEM NO. 10.
I THINK YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, DID YOU NOT,
THAT HE TRANSFERRED, THAT HE HANDED THAT TO YOU OVER THE
FENCE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW IS NOT VERY CLEAR ON
EXACTLY WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD OR GLOVES?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR
RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD
GLOVES?
A NO.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION AS TO
WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD?
A NO.
Q AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT HE PICKED THIS
ITEM UP AND HE HANDED IT TO YOU OVER THAT FENCE? IS THAT
HOW IT HAPPENED OR DO YOU RECALL?
A IT WAS IN A COIN ENVELOPE AND HE HANDED IT TO
ME OVER THE FENCE (INDICATING).
Q OKAY.
SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE LITTLE COIN ENVELOPES?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S A LITTLE COIN
ENVELOPE, WOULD IT NOT BE DIFFICULT TO BE USING THE SCOOP
METHOD WITH THE COIN ENVELOPE?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ORDINARILY, WOULD YOU USE THE
SCOOP METHOD WITH ONE OF THOSE SMALL COIN ENVELOPES?
A I'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
Q IT'S FAIRLY DIFFICULT, ISN'T IT, AS OPPOSED TO
A LARGE PAPER BAG?
A NO.
Q NO?
A IT IS MORE DIFFICULT, BUT IT'S NOT A LOT MORE
DIFFICULT.
Q OKAY.
SO IT'S MORE DIFFICULT?
A A LITTLE BIT, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THIS --
MR. SCHECK: ASK THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS
DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.
THE COURT: 1073.
MR. SCHECK: 1073.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DEFENSE 1073.
(DEFT'S 1073 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH
OF ITEM NO. 10 AS YOU SAW IT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
A YES.
MR. SCHECK: MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, CAN YOU PULL BACK FROM THAT
A LITTLE BIT?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF
THAT ITEM NO. 10, ONE WOULD -- TO USE THE SCOOP METHOD
THERE, YOU MIGHT GET SOME LEAVES OR DEBRIS INTO THE COIN
ENVELOPE?
A PERHAPS.
Q PERHAPS? DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S LIKELY GIVEN
ITS LOCATION?
A NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
Q NO?
AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THERE ARE
NO LEAVES IN THAT COIN ENVELOPE, ARE THERE?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YEAH, THERE ARE
NO LEAVES IN THERE, RIGHT.
Q SO IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE TO HAVE USED
GLOVES AND PICKED THAT UP AND PUT IT INTO THE COIN
ENVELOPE, IT WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE LEAVES IN IT;
WOULDN'T YOU THINK?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE.
YOU ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A I ARRIVED THERE AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND BEFORE YOU GOT THERE, STILL -- DID IT COME
TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT A STILL PHOTOGRAPHER HAD ALREADY
BEEN ON THE SCENE AND HAD TAKEN PICTURES?
A YES.
Q AND THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA AT THE BUNDY
CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE?
A THERE WAS A LOT OF NEWS MEDIA WITH VIDEO
CAMERAS.
Q I UNDERSTAND THAT.
YOU'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE TAPES; HAVE YOU
NOT, SIR?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE REVIEWED THEM VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE
YOU CAME TO TESTIFY?
A I'VE REVIEWED THEM.
Q ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES?
A ONCE, TWICE.
Q ONCE, TWICE? WITH THE -- ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PROSECUTION TEAM?
A YES.
Q AND WHO WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS MR. GOLDBERG.
Q ANYONE ELSE?
A HE'S THE ONLY ONE I RECALL BEING THERE.
Q AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO THAT?
A ONCE.
Q AND ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID IT TAKE YOU?
A TOOK AWHILE. I DON'T REMEMBER. MAYBE THREE
HOURS. I DON'T RECALL.
Q AND YOU STUDIED THEM CAREFULLY; DID YOU NOT?
A WE LOOKED AT THEM.
Q AND INCIDENTALLY, BEFORE YOU CAME AND TESTIFIED
ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, DID YOU UNDERGO A NUMBER OF
PREPARATION SESSIONS?
A YES. I MET WITH MR. GOLDBERG A FEW TIMES.
Q ABOUT HOW MANY?
A MORE THAN 10.
Q MORE THAN 10?
A YES.
Q AND ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU -- DID EACH OF THESE
SESSIONS TAKE IF YOU RECALL?
A THEY VARIED ANYWHERE FROM FIVE MINUTES TO THREE
OR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS.
Q AND DID YOU EVER HAVE A SESSION WHERE PEOPLE
WERE BROUGHT IN THAT CROSS-EXAMINED YOU IN PREPARATION?
A NO.
Q NOW, THERE ARE VIDEO CAMERAS AVAILABLE AT THE
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION; ARE THERE NOT?
A YES, THERE ARE.
Q AND ON OCCASION, THESE VIDEO CAMERAS ARE USED
TO TAKE VIDEOTAPES OF CRIME SCENES?
A ON OCCASION, YES.
Q AND THAT IS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CRIMINALIST?
A NO. USUALLY THAT'S DONE AT THE REQUEST OF A
DETECTIVE.
Q DETECTIVE. SOMETIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CRIMINALIST?
A I HAVE NEVER HAD OCCASION TO REQUEST ONE.
Q BUT SOMETIMES DETECTIVES HAVE?
A YES.
Q AND IF ONE TAKES A VIDEO CAMERA TO A CRIME
SCENE, THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES TO USING IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT, THAT IT'S
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THERE MAY BE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE ADVANTAGE -- ONE OF THE
ADVANTAGES IS THAT YOU CAN PAN THE ENTIRE SCENE IN ONE
CONTINUOUS SWEEPING SHOT TO SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE LIES?
A THAT WOULD BE ONE ADVANTAGE, YES.
Q AND THAT'S -- IT CUTS DOWN ON THE SELECTIVITY
THAT ONE GETS WHEN YOU TAKE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS?
A WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SELECTIVITY?
Q WELL, WHEN ONE CHOOSES TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH AT
A CERTAIN ANGLE, A STILL PHOTOGRAPH, ONE IS MAKING A
SELECTION ABOUT THE ANGLE AT WHICH THE PICTURE IS TAKEN?
A YES.
Q AND ORDINARILY WHEN YOU DIRECT THE FORENSIC
PHOTOGRAPHERS AT A CRIME SCENE, YOU MAKE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT
ABOUT WHAT ANGLES TO TAKE TO ILLUSTRATE THE EVIDENCE WELL?
A I WILL GIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS THE INSTRUCTIONS TO
TAKE OVERALLS OF THE CRIME SCENE, AND THEN AFTER THAT IS
DONE, THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC SHOTS THAT I WILL DIRECT
THEM TO TAKE.
Q BUT AN ADVANTAGE OF VIDEO IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE
AN OVERALL OF THE CRIME SCENE WITH A VIDEO, ONE GETS MORE
THAN IF YOU TAKE AN OVER -- YOU TAKE A SERIES OF STILL
SHOTS?
A THAT'S POSSIBLE. MAY NOT BE -- NOT IN ALL
CASES THOUGH.
Q WELL, IF DONE WELL WITH A VIDEO, WOULDN'T THAT
ORDINARILY BE TRUE IN YOUR JUDGMENT?
A IF DONE WELL WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, THAT'S JUST AS
GOOD.
Q YOU THINK IT'S JUST AS GOOD TO DO A SERIES OF
STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AS OPPOSED TO A VIDEO?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS WELL.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF, IN YOUR
EXPERIENCE AS A CRIMINALIST, WHETHER OTHER MAJOR
METROPOLITAN AREAS ROUTINELY USE VIDEOTAPES FOR CRIME
SCENES?
A I'VE HEARD IT MENTIONED THAT SOME PEOPLE OR
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO USE THEM ON OCCASION. I DON'T KNOW
IF THEY USE THEM ON A ROUTINE BASIS THOUGH.
Q WELL, THERE WAS A VIDEO USED IN THIS CASE,
WASN'T THERE?
A YES, THERE WAS.
Q THAT THAT VIDEO WAS A VIDEOTAPE TAKEN AT
ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q THAT WAS A VIDEOTAPE OR AT LEAST ONE PURPOSE OF
IT WAS TO TAKE SHOTS OF THE INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S
RESIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF A VIDEO WAS
TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13 OF THE
INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW IF ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THAT
VIDEOTAPE WAS TO PROTECT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM CIVIL
LIABILITY?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE VIDEO.
Q AND -- BUT THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA TO RECORD
THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE?
A I DID NOT OBSERVE ONE.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS WHAT
TIME? 10:15?
A YES.
Q AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD HEARD OR YOU
BELIEVED AT THAT TIME THAT THE VICTIMS WERE FIRST
DISCOVERED SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS?
A YES.
Q SO BY THE -- EXCUSE ME. BY THE TIME YOU
ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 10 HOURS
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM WHEN THE BODIES WERE FIRST FOUND?
A SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q AND ISN'T THAT, MR. FUNG, FAIRLY LATE IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS FOR CRIMINALISTS
TO ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A I HAVE ARRIVED AT CRIME SCENES WHEN THE BODIES
ARE MONTHS OLD.
Q WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE NOBODY FOUND THEM FOR
MONTHS, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT WHEN YOU GET A HOMICIDE CALL, YOU TOLD US
THAT YOU TRY TO GET TO THE SCENE WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE
CALL?
A THAT'S OUR -- THAT'S OUR GOAL FOR OUR RESPONSE
TIME, YES.
Q AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE CRIMINALISTS AT
THE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS?
THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE ASKED THIS QUESTION ABOUT
THE FIFTH TIME.
MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT,
YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST FOUNDATIONALLY LEADING TO SOMETHING
ELSE.
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S GET THERE.
THE WITNESS: IT'S PREFERABLE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU HAVE OBSERVED
PHOTOGRAPHS IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE THAT WERE TAKEN BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?
A COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
Q HAVE YOU LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN
OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU ARRIVED?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THOSE IN YOUR ATTEMPTS
TO DO CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. MISSTATES A FACT NOT IN
EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER TO RECONSTRUCT THE CRIME SCENE
THAT YOU FOUND AT BUNDY?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IS CRIME SCENE
RECONSTRUCTION? I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS --
A RECONSTRUCTION -- CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IS
USING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE TO TRY TO COME UP
WITH A SCENARIO AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
Q AND IN DOING THAT -- YOU DID THAT IN THIS CASE,
TRIED TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE?
A ONLY IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION.
Q BUT YOU TRIED?
A IN A LIMITED FASHION.
Q AND YOU PARTICIPATED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN
THEIR EFFORTS TO DO SO?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND OTHER EXPERTS HAVE COME AND
DISCUSSED THE CRIME SCENE AS YOU FOUND IT AT BUNDY WITH YOU
IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO DO RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE?
A YES.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR ONE MOMENT ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH?
THE COURT: DO YOU NEED THE REPORTER?
MR. SCHECK: YES, I THINK SO.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH WHICH
I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE HAVE VARIOUS DIFFERENT FORMS OF IT
THAT THE PEOPLE PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED.
THE COURT: YEAH. THIS IS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN.
MR. SCHECK: POINTING AT THE GLOVE.
THE COURT: POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND PERHAPS THE SKI
CAP AND BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AS PRESENT IN THE
RIGHT -- LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.
MR. SCHECK: YES. FROM MY READING OF THE GRAND JURY
TESTIMONY, I THINK THAT MR. FUNG HAD ACTUALLY BEEN
DISPLAYED THIS PICTURE, HAD BEEN SHOWN THIS PICTURE OR ONE
OF THE VERSIONS OF IT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SHOW THIS PICTURE,
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. HARRIS TO FOCUS IN, USING THE
COMPUTER SYSTEM, ON ONE PART OF IT THAT DOESN'T -- AND CROP
OUT THE PICTURE OF HER BODY, AND THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSE TO
DO RIGHT NOW.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO IDEA FOR WHAT
PURPOSE MR. SCHECK WANTS TO USE IT, BUT IF HE IS GOING TO
BE ASKING THE WITNESS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE RECOGNIZES
IT, IT COULD BE VERY MISLEADING TO THE WITNESS IF HE
DOESN'T SEE THE PICTURE, PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICTIM.
MR. SCHECK: LET ME DO THIS.
LET ME SHOW THE WITNESS THE ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPH
AND THEN CROP OFF THE VICTIM.
MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, YOU CAN CUT THE FEED. THERE'S
PROBABLY SOME OTHER PICTURE WE COULD GET IF YOU WANT.
MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE ONE I HAVE TO USE FOR THIS
FIRST SHOT, AND WE'VE WORKED IT OUT WITH MR. HARRIS.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, JUST ONE MORE STATEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A LEGAL OBJECTION, BUT
MISS CLARK TELLS ME THIS SCENE IS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE. SO
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT WOULD PREFER THEM TO REFER
TO THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MARKED. I MEAN,
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S DISCRETIONARY WITH THE
COURT.
THE COURT: I THINK IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO FISH
IT OUT, FIND IT. SO LET'S USE THIS ONE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
MR. SCHECK: NEW YORKERS, WE TALK FAST, WE MOVE FAST.
THE COURT: NOT FAST ENOUGH.
MR. SCHECK: NOT FAST ENOUGH, I KNOW. I'M TRYING,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE DISREGARD
ANY BANTER.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS PHOTOGRAPH
DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER AND SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS.
MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
COUNSEL, ANY COUNSEL WHO'S QUESTIONING THE
WITNESS AND OPPOSING COUNSEL CAN APPROACH THE WITNESS
WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH
BEFORE?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q HAVE YOU SEEN ANY VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH
BEFORE OR CLOSE-UP SHOT OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS
PHOTOGRAPH OR ANY VERSION OF IT.
Q MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER OBSERVED A PHOTOGRAPH
OF THE GLOVE AND ENVELOPE AT BUNDY WITH A PICTURE OF
SOMEBODY POINTING AT IT?
A NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION.
Q MR. FUNG, YOU RECALL TESTIFYING AT THE GRAND
JURY ON JUNE 22ND?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU RECALL BEING ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE BROWN MEN'S LEATHER GLOVE THAT YOU OBSERVED AT THE
BUNDY LOCATION?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PICTURES OF THAT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND I'M AT LINE 8, PAGE 337.
"QUESTION: WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS A BROWN
MEN'S --"
MR. GOLDBERG: CAN I HAVE A MOMENT?
MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SCHECK: 377.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: "QUESTION:"
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE
COURT HAS ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT, BUT I WOULD OBJECT TO
THIS. THIS IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT.
THE COURT: OVER AT SIDEBAR WITH THE REPORTER AND THE
TRANSCRIPT.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THIS, LET ME TRY ONE
OTHER THING THAT MAYBE CAN AVOID THIS PROBLEM.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE
MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.
THE COURT: 1074.
(DEFT'S 1074 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN
THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A I'VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS LIKE IT, BUT I DON'T
RECALL IF I'VE SEEN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH.
Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE
GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT INCLUDED A PERSON POINTING AT IT?
A I DON'T RECALL.
Q ALL RIGHT.
MR. FUNG, WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE GRAND JURY
PAGES.
WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS --
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY
INDICATES HERE MR. FUNG WAS SHOWN AN EXHIBIT, ALL RIGHT,
PICTURE OF THE GLOVE, PICTURE OF PHOTOGRAPH B, AND THE
ANSWER SAYS YES. THE GLOVE I'M REFERRING TO SHOWN IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH, A PERSON IS POINTING TO IT. THERE'S ALSO A
GLOVE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND CORNER OF PHOTOGRAPH C.
IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. FUNG WAS
SHOWN EITHER WHAT IS PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A
PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO A GLOVE, OR THE
CLOSE-UP SHOT THAT I THINK HAS JUST BEEN MARKED.
THE COURT: FOR THIS TO BE INCONSISTENT, YOU HAVE TO
HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND JURY.
MR. SCHECK: I DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND
JURY. MAYBE MISS CLARK WILL RECOLLECT -- I'M NOT SURE THIS
OBJECTION IS REALLY IN GOOD FAITH UNLESS THEY HAVE THOSE
PICTURES. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THERE'S NO OTHER PICTURE IN
THIS CASE OF DETECTIVE -- ANYONE POINTING AT THE GLOVE.
THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU READ THE
TRANSCRIPT, IT'S GOING TO SAY "EXHIBIT B," WHICH IS NOT
HERE.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, THE TRANSCRIPT REFERS TO A PERSON
POINTING TO A GLOVE. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT; HAS HE
EVER SEEN A PICTURE OF A PERSON POINTING OUT A GLOVE, IF
THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, IF THEY SHOWED HIM THE
PICTURE, IF THERE IS ANY OTHER PICTURE.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE HAVE A PRETTY STRICT RULE
HERE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE A TRANSCRIPT TO IMPEACH THAT
REFERS TO AN EXHIBIT, THAT EXHIBIT HAS TO BE HERE. THAT'S
JUST COMMON SENSE.
NOW, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE GRAND
JURY EXHIBITS HERE. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ASK THE CLERK.
MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY HERE?
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THEY ARE HERE. WE HAVE TO
GET THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS.
MR. COCHRAN: ARE THEY HERE?
THE COURT: WE'LL ASK MRS. ROBERTSON.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'LL DO IT WITH THE PEOPLE'S
EXHIBIT.
MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE WE CAN STIPULATE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: CAN WE STIPULATE.
MR. GOLDBERG: PERHAPS, YOUR HONOR, THAT DIDN'T
REALLY GO TO THE GRAVAMEN OF MY OBJECTION. THE REASON --
THE BASIC REASON WHY I WAS OBJECTING WAS THAT WHAT THE
WITNESS SAID WAS -- HE WAS ASKED TWO QUESTIONS -- WAS, HE
MAY HAVE SEEN SOME VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND HE
DOESN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS THAT ONE.
THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
MR. GOLDBERG: SO I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS BEING
INCONSISTENT.
THE COURT: BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPH HE WAS
SHOWN.
MR. SCHECK: MAY I PROCEED IN THIS FASHION BECAUSE I
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET ON WITH IT.
THE COURT: PLEASE.
MR. SCHECK: THE FOCUS OF MY EXAMINATION IS GOING TO
BE ITEMS THAT ARE HERE, INCLUDING THIS PIECE OF PAPER. I
WILL USE THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT AND CUT OFF THE BODY.
THE COURT: YOU DON'T NEED TO CUT OFF THE BODY
BECAUSE I'M NOT LETTING IT OUT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
SHOW IT TO THE JURY.
MR. SCHECK: WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING FOR IS PERMISSION
TO SHOW THIS PHOTOGRAPH FOCUSING ON THE AREA ON THE ELMO.
THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM THOUGH. IN ORDER TO
UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS, I THINK THEY NEED TO SEE THE FULL
PHOTOGRAPH IS MY POINT. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU USE THE WHOLE
PHOTOGRAPH.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, I WOULD
PREFER --
THE COURT: YOU DO IT HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, BUT
I'M JUST SAYING THAT --
MR. SCHECK: NO, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE UP AT THE BENCH
HERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. I DON'T WANT
TO HAVE AN UNFAIR PRESENTATION ON THE OTHER HAND, A 352
PROBLEM.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF ALL YOU'RE DOING IS GOING
AFTER, WHAT IS THIS, WHY WAS IT COLLECTED, BE MY GUEST.
MR. SCHECK: THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I WANT TO
EXHIBIT THAT WITHOUT SHOWING HER BODY.
THE COURT: SHOW THE ORIGINAL TO HIM FIRST, AND THEN
ON THE ELMO, CUT IT OFF.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, DID THE COURT RULE ON MY
--
THE COURT: YEAH. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S
INCONSISTENT.
MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE A REQUEST TO HAVE THE GRAND
JURY EXHIBITS?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE TO SIGN AN ORDER. SEE,
THE GRAND JURY IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY.
WE CAN DO THAT LATER. I AM TELLING YOU, WE
NEED A HALF DAY'S NOTICE BEFORE GETTING THEIR EXHIBITS AND
WE HAVE TO INDIVIDUALLY ORDER EACH ONE.
MR. SCHECK: I ONLY WANT THE ONES INDICATED HERE.
THIS IS MY NOTICE.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, YOU NEED TO LET THE
CLERK KNOW.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE TRY THIS
WITH PEOPLE'S 55.
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE?
A BEFORE TODAY?
Q YES.
A I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT PARTICULAR
PHOTOGRAPH. I DO RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION THOUGH.
Q RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION AS BEING THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND BASED ON OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAY
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WOULD IT BE YOUR VIEW THAT THIS IS A
PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE BUNDY
GLOVE?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION, YOUR
HONOR.
MR. SCHECK: BASED ON THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS HE SAYS
HE IS AWARE OF.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I CAN'T MAKE OUT IF THAT'S DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN THERE OR NOT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: BUT YOU SEE IT AS SOME --
INDIVIDUAL POINTING AT THAT GLOVE, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND I TAKE IT JUST LOOKING AT THE -- AT THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE AS IT'S DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THIS
IS NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FORM, THIS CRIME SCENE IS NOT IN
EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT ON JUNE
13TH?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I ASK PERMISSION FOR MR.
HARRIS TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO AND --
THE COURT: OKAY. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. WE NEED TO
--
MR. SCHECK: -- CUT THE FEED.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU WANT TO WARN ANY
FAMILY MEMBERS?
MR. SCHECK: WELL, WE'RE GOING TO -- WE'RE TRYING
TO-- HE'S GOING TO FOCUS IN ON A SEGMENT OF THIS
PHOTOGRAPH.
THE COURT: MUCH AS I TRUST MR. HARRIS, JUST AS A
FOREWARNING.
MR. SCHECK: I KNOW HE'LL DO THIS RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
MR. FUNG, YOU CAN -- SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S
PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DO YOU SEE A PIECE OF PAPER IN THIS
PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU DID NOT SEE WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH?
A I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
Q YOU DON'T?
A I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR YOU
WANT ME TO --
Q YES.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO USE
THE TELESTRATOR. ACTUALLY I THINK I'M BETTER OFF HAVING
MR. HARRIS USE IT.
THE COURT: HAVE HIM PUT THE ARROW AT THE ITEM YOU'RE
DIRECTING MR. FUNG TO.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE WHERE THE ARROW IS
POINTING TO, MR. FUNG?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A PIECE OF PAPER?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHEN YOU
ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, DID YOU?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I SAW IT OR NOT.
Q DID YOU RECOVER THAT PIECE OF PAPER?
A NO.
Q GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT PIECE OF PAPER IN
RELATION TO THE CRIME SCENE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MIGHT
HAVE SOME RELEVANCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION,
CALLS FOR --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IN YOUR VIEW AS A CRIMINALIST,
IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER AT THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE, WOULD YOU HAVE COLLECTED IT AS RELEVANT EVIDENCE?
A I MIGHT HAVE.
Q MIGHT HAVE?
A YES.
Q WELL, THAT PIECE OF PAPER IS CLOSE TO THE
ENVELOPE?
A YES.
Q IT IS CLOSE TO THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q THAT IS THE -- WHAT IS BEING OBLITERATED BY THE
POST-IT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PICTURE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT, WOULD YOU NOT,
BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE THE SHOE IMPRESSION ON IT OF ONE OF
THE ASSAILANTS?
A IF I HAD SEEN -- IF -- ASSUMING THAT I HAD SEEN
THE PAPER, I WOULD HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LIKELY
TO HAVE HAD SOME TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU -- IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE -- IF YOU
HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER, YOU WOULD HAVE EXAMINED IT TO
SEE IF IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS?
A POSSIBLY, YES.
Q POSSIBLY?
A FOR POSSIBLE SHOE IMPRESSIONS.
Q YOU WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q FOR THAT PURPOSE. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE
PURPOSES?
A THAT IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WOULD ALSO WANT TO SEE, IF YOU HAD BEEN
ABLE TO, WHETHER OR NOT THAT PIECE OF PAPER HAD ANY WRITING
ON IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THIS IS
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF BASIC CRIME SCENE
RECONSTRUCTION, WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY
THAT THAT PIECE OF PAPER COULD HAVE BEEN RIPPED OUT OF THE
HANDS OF THE KILLER?
A POSSIBLY.
Q IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE IN YOUR
JUDGMENT THAT PIECE OF PAPER FOR FINGERPRINTS?
A YES. IN THE STATE THAT IT APPEARS IN THE
PICTURE, YES.
Q AND FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST,
SIR, IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO COLLECT THAT PIECE OF PAPER?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT BECAUSE
THERE'S NO FOUNDATION THAT HE SAW IT.
MR. SCHECK: HE'S SEEING IT NOW.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY, YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: SERIOUS MISTAKE?
A COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE.
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: NO. HE'S ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'VE ADMITTED YES, IT'S A
MISTAKE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR
MIND, MR. FUNG, THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THIS CRIME SCENE
AND SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHERE IT WAS LOCATED, THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT IT WITH GREAT CARE? ANY
QUESTION?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS THE WITNESS NEEDS
TO LOOK AT A PHOTOGRAPH WITH BETTER RESOLUTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I HAD ONE.
THE WITNESS: CAN I ANSWER?
THE COURT: ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: LOOKING AT THE PICTURE AND THE
CONDITION OF THE PAPER, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'RE SAYING PROBABLY. MY
QUESTION TO YOU, IS THERE ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN YOUR MIND
THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THAT PIECE OF PAPER IF YOU
HAD BEEN THERE TO SEE IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T KNOW?
THE COURT: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE CRIME
SCENE LATER, MR. FUNG, YOU OBSERVED A BONITA ECUADOR LABEL;
DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH
THAT BONITA ECUADOR LABEL WAS?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
HIM TO SEE THE REST OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
MS. CLARK: MATTER OF FACT, THIS PHOTOGRAPH DOESN'T
SHOW THAT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
CAN YOU TELL FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THAT
LABEL WAS?
THE WITNESS: IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU GIVE US A GENERAL SENSE
OF WHERE IT WAS LOCATED?
A IT WAS LOCATED SOMEPLACE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE
WALKWAY.
Q MR. HARRIS HAS A ROVING ARROW, AND PERHAPS YOU
COULD DIRECT IT.
A LOWER, OVER MORE TO THE RIGHT. IN THAT AREA
SOMEPLACE (INDICATING).
MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
CAN WE MAKE A MARK?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THAT IS THE LOCATION WHERE YOU FOUND THE
BONITA ECUADOR LABEL?
A AROUND THERE, YES.
Q AND YOU COLLECTED THAT?
A YES.
Q YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE?
A I COLLECTED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE
LANGE.
Q SO DETECTIVE LANGE THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT
EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU AGREE WITH HIS JUDGMENT?
A I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.
Q YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, MR. FUNG, YOU DON'T
QUESTION THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVES, DO YOU?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S A LITTLE OVERBROAD.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU PICKED UP THE BONITA
ECUADOR LABEL, BUT YOU'RE TELLING US YOU'RE NOT SURE
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE PIECE OF PAPER
IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
I GUESS WE'LL PRINT THAT OUT AND MARK THIS --
MAYBE -- SHOULD WE PUT A "BE" OVER THAT LITTLE SPOT AS
BONITA ECUADOR?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF THE
TELESTRATOR DOES THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
RECORD TO INDICATE WHAT SECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IS
BLOCKED OFF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DONE ONCE THEY PRINT
IT OUT.
MR. SCHECK: IT WILL BE ON THE PRINT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, WHAT IS TRACE
EVIDENCE?
THE COURT: I AM SORRY. EXCUSE ME. WE NEED TO MARK
THIS. WHY DON'T WE -- SINCE IT IS A COPY OF THE PEOPLE'S
EXHIBIT, LET'S MAKE THIS 55-A.
55-B?
ALL RIGHT. 55-B.
THE CLERK: A AND B.
THE COURT: A AND B? GREAT.
ALL RIGHT.
(PEO'S 55-A AND 55-B FOR ID = PRINT OF PHOTO)
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT IS TRACE
EVIDENCE? HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT TERM?
A TRACE EVIDENCE -- EXAMPLES OF TRACE EVIDENCE
ARE HAIR, FIBER, PAINT, CHIPS OF GLASS, MINERAL SOIL, THAT
TYPE OF THING.
Q WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRACE EVIDENCE CAN
BE THOUGHT OF AS EVIDENCE OCCURRING IN SIZES SO SMALL THAT
IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN TWO SURFACES WITHOUT BEING
NOTICED?
A SOME FORMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE, YES?
Q MANY FORMS?
A YES.
Q HAIRS?
A YES.
Q FIBERS?
A YES.
Q AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE "TRANSFER EVIDENCE"?
A I'VE HEARD THE TERM, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE
EXACT DEFINITION. I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRANSFER EVIDENCE STRICTLY
SPEAKING IS EVIDENCE WHICH IS EXCHANGED AS A RESULT OF
CONTACT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS?
A THAT CAN BE ONE DEFINITION, YES.
Q UH-HUH.
AND TRACE EVIDENCE, SMALL HAIRS AND FIBERS, CAN
OFTEN BE TRANSFER EVIDENCE AS WELL. IN OTHER WORDS --
A YES.
Q YES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A
CRIMINALIST IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, TRACE EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OVERBROAD.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I AM CONCERNED WITH TRACE EVIDENCE,
YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU APPROACH A CRIME
SCENE, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE BECAUSE
IT IS FRAGILE?
A YES.
Q AND BECAUSE IT CAN BE EASILY TRANSFERRED FROM
ONE OBJECT TO THE OTHER IF THE CRIMINALIST OR OTHERS ON THE
SCENE ARE NOT CAREFUL?
A YES.
Q AND THERE IS SOMETHING KNOWN AS SECONDARY
TRANSFER; IS THERE NOT?
A I HAVE HEARD THAT TERM ALSO.
Q AND WOULD SECONDARY TRANSFER REFER TO A
SITUATION WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE COULD GET ON A PERSON'S
CLOTHING OR LET'S SAY A TOWEL, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN BE
TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER LOCATION AND FALL OFF ON ANOTHER
OBJECT OF EVIDENCE? THAT WOULD BE A SECONDARY TRANSFER?
A YES.
Q AND AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT NOT CONTAMINATING A CRIME SCENE WITH TRACE EVIDENCE
BY WAY OF A SECONDARY TRANSFER?
A IF IT IS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE IS
OF SIGNIFICANCE, YES.
Q THIS WAS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE WAS
SIGNIFICANT?
A CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CRIME SCENE WERE
IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES.
Q THE SMALL AREA AT BUNDY WHERE THE TWO VICTIMS
WERE FOUND, THAT AREA WAS ONE OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO
TRACE EVIDENCE?
A AREAS OF THAT -- AREAS WITHIN WHAT YOU
DESCRIBED WERE VERY IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES.
Q VERY IMPORTANT?
A VERY.
Q VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE CLOTHES OF THE
VICTIMS?
A YES.
Q VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT GLOVE THAT WAS
FOUND AT BUNDY?
A YES.
Q VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT KNIT HAT?
A YES.
Q VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ALL THE PHYSICAL
OBJECTS THAT SURROUNDED THE VICTIMS IN THAT VERY SMALL
ENCLOSED CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S OVERBROAD.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TEND TO BE MORE
USEFUL FOR TRACE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THESE WERE ITEMS THAT YOU
ANTICIPATED AS SOON AS YOU GOT THERE WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN
TERMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE
CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, THE OBJECTS SURROUNDING THE
VICTIMS, AS SOON AS YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND SAW
ALL OF THAT, YOU KNEW THESE OBJECTS WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN
TERMS OF COLLECTING THEM FOR TRACE EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AS TO THE
OBJECTS.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
WHEN YOU SAY "OBJECTS ALL AROUND," I MEAN
THAT'S WAY TOO BIG. JUST STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS.
MR. SCHECK: WE'LL STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS. THANK
YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE
CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, ALL THOSE WERE IMPORTANT IN TERMS
OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU
SAW THAT THERE WAS A BLANKET OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON?
A I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T RECALL BEING THERE THAT
SOON. WHEN I GOT THERE, THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON WAS BEING
PROCESSED.
Q WHERE -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE
BLANKET?
A I SAW THE BLANKET WHEN IT WAS ON THE GROUND.
Q IT WAS ON THE GROUND IN THE AREA WHERE MISS
SIMPSON'S BODY WAS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU CAME TO LEARN IN YOUR INVESTIGATION
THAT DAY THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN USED TO COVER THE BODY?
A YES.
Q AND YOU CAME TO LEARN THAT THAT BLANKET HAD
COME FROM THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
A I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
Q HAVE YOU FOUND THAT OUT?
A SINCE THEN, YES.
Q AND DID YOU MAKE ANY INQUIRY ON THAT DAY ABOUT
WHERE THAT BLANKET HAD COME FROM?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT A BLANKET OF
THAT KIND IS A SOURCE OF -- A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF SECONDARY
TRANSFER?
A POSSIBLY.
Q AND THAT IF MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THAT HOME
AND BEEN SITTING, LYING ON THAT BLANKET, HIS HAIRS COULD BE
IN THAT BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WITHIN YOUR EXPERTISE,
IS THAT THE KIND OF BLANKET THAT IF SOMEBODY WERE SITTING
ON IT, LYING ON IT, ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND HAIRS THAT
THEY HAD SHED ON THE BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IN YOUR EXPERTISE AS A
CRIMINALIST, DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT DIFFERENT
KINDS OF ITEMS THAT CAN BE SOURCES OF POSSIBLE SECONDARY
TRANSFER?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH OBJECTS BEING
BROUGHT INTO CRIME SCENES?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT SUCH OBJECTS BEING
BROUGHT INTO CRIME SCENES BECAUSE THEY CAN BE A SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION?
A YES.
Q AND IF THIS BLANKET HAD HAIRS FROM MR. SIMPSON,
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE CRIME SCENE BY WAY OF
PUTTING THE BLANKET THERE?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME ASK YOU A HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTION.
ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE HOME
AT BUNDY AND ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS HAD SAT OR LAY ON
THAT BLANKET AND SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THEN THAT
BLANKET WAS TAKEN AND PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME
SCENE, IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION, COULD THAT BE A SOURCE OF
CROSS CONTAMINATION OF MR. SIMPSON'S HAIRS TO THIS CRIME
SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I MAKE THE SAME OBJECTION.
CAN WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: YES. WITH THE COURT REPORTER.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE'VE OVER AT SIDEBAR.
MR. GOLDBERG, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MY OBJECTION IS THE SAME,
THAT IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION, IMPROPER OPINION.
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE MANNER OF THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION IS SUCH THAT COUNSEL APPEARS TO BE
TURNING TO THE JURY AND IS NOT REALLY PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED ABOUT ELICITING INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESS, BUT
GETTING HIS POINT ACROSS TO THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT I
JUST DON'T FEEL IS PROPER.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL --
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S MORE OF A CLOSING ARGUMENT THAN
A CROSS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS A PROPER
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION GIVEN THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE AS A
CRIMINALIST. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, ANY RESPONSE?
MR. GOLDBERG: NO. MY OBJECTION IS THE SAME, YOUR
HONOR, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION AND
IT'S NOT AN EXPERT OPINION. IT'S JUST GETTING A POINT
ACROSS TO THE JURY. COULD THIS CONCEIVABLY HAVE HAPPENED,
YEAH, A LOT OF THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED.
MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ASKING
EXPERTS HYPOTHETICALS. I THINK I'VE LAID A PROPER
FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF TRACE EVIDENCE AND
SECONDARY TRANSFER.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
AND AS FAR AS MR. SCHECK, WHEN HE MAKES -- WHEN
HE ASKS THE QUESTION AND LOOKS AT THE JURY. THAT'S A
MATTER OF TRIAL TECHNIQUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO LOOK
AT THE JURORS AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN YOU ASK
QUESTIONS, MAKING EYE CONTACT WITH THE JURORS. IT'S A
TECHNIQUE OF TRIAL PRACTICE THAT I'VE USED MYSELF.
AND I'VE MADE IT A POINT TO ALWAYS WATCH WHAT
THE JURY IS REACTING TO WHEN I ASKED A QUESTION IF IT WAS
IMPORTANT. SO --
MR. GOLDBERG: IF THAT'S WHAT THE COURT VIEWS WHAT
HAPPENS.
THE COURT: I THINK IT'S A LITTLE FLAMBOYANT, MORE SO
THAN I WOULD DO, BUT THEN IT'S DEPENDENT ON WHAT'S INVOLVED
WITH HERE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO GO WITH WHAT MAKES YOU
COMFORTABLE.
MR. COCHRAN: OFF THE RECORD.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS
TO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT
MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND SAT OR LAID
ON THAT BLANKET, SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THAT
BLANKET IS TAKEN AND PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME SCENE,
COULD THAT IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY
TRANSFER OF HIS HAIRS TO THE CRIME SCENE?
A IT'S POSSIBLE.
Q POSSIBLE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS KNOWN AS
CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND IF MR. SIMPSON OR HIS -- ANY OF HIS
CHILDREN OR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR.
SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO, PICKED UP FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO
AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, THERE
COULD BE FIBERS FROM THE BRONCO ON THAT BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: COULD THERE BE IN YOUR EXPERT
OPINION ASSUMING -- WITHDRAWN.
ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON OR HIS CHILDREN OR
MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR. SIMPSON'S FORD
BRONCO AND GOTTEN FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO ON THEIR CLOTHING
AT SOME POINT IN TIME AND THEN AT SOME OTHER POINT IN TIME
SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, FIBERS COULD BE SHED FROM THE
BRONCO TO THE BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION.
CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: PREMISE OF A HYPOTHETICAL.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU WITH ME SO FAR?
A IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FOLLOW, BUT YES.
Q AND IF A DOG -- HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOG KATO?
A THE CANINE? NO.
Q KATO. KATO. KATO THE DOG.
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE,
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A DOG NAMED KATO?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q NOT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT SOME POINT
WHEN YOU DID SUBSEQUENT SEARCHES, DID YOU SEE THIS DOG
KATO?
A I DON'T KNOW THE DOG BY NAME.
Q WELL, WERE YOU TOLD THAT THERE WAS A DOG THAT
WAS OWNED BY MR. SIMPSON THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IN
SOME CONNECTION?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DOG INVOLVED IN
THE CASE SOMEHOW, BUT I COULDN'T IDENTIFY THAT DOG FOR YOU.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND AGAIN, AS A BASIS FOR THIS
HYPOTHETICAL, CAN YOU ASSUME THAT IF A DOG WERE LYING ON
THIS BLANKET IN QUESTION OR MOVING ON THIS BLANKET IN
QUESTION, THAT DOG HAIRS CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
AND THE DOG ITSELF MAY HAVE HAIRS AND FIBERS
FROM OTHER PEOPLE WITH WHOM IT HAS BEEN IN CONTACT?
A YES.
Q THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT, IN YOUR JUDGMENT?
A IT'S POSSIBLE.
Q AND ASSUMING THAT TO BE THE FACT, THAT A DOG
COULD HAVE SHED FIBERS AND HAIRS ON THE BLANKET AND PEOPLE
WHO HAD BEEN THE CHILDREN OF MR. SIMPSON AND MR. SIMPSON
HIMSELF AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN AND OUT
OF THE BRONCO AND BEEN ON THAT BLANKET, HAIRS AND FIBERS
FROM THE DOG AND FROM THE BRONCO COULD BE ON THAT BLANKET?
A IT'S QUITE A LOT FOR ME TO --
Q QUITE A LOT, HUH?
A FOR ME TO --
Q ASSESS.
A YEAH. THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE.
Q YEAH. I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO -- LET'S JUST
ASSUME ALL THAT OCCURRED AND THOSE FIBERS ARE ON THAT
BLANKET. ALL RIGHT? YOU WITH ME?
A YES.
Q IF THAT BLANKET WAS TRANSFERRED AND PUT RIGHT
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THERE IS A CHANCE OF
SECONDARY TRANSFER OF THOSE HAIRS AND FIBERS ACROSS THIS
CRIME SCENE?
A YES, THERE IS A CHANCE.
Q AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU
TRY AT ALL COSTS TO AVOID TAKING AN OBJECT THAT COULD HAVE
LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT AND PUTTING IT RIGHT INTO
THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE, DON'T YOU?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, ISN'T IT?
A YES.
Q AND IT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN
BODIES ARE BEING REMOVED AND THEY'RE BEING DRAGGED INTO THE
SAME AREA WHERE THAT BLANKET WAS?
A IT CAN BE, YES.
Q BECAUSE THAT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN
HAVE CROSS CONTAMINATION OF THE FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET AND
IT COULD COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE CLOTHING OF NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S
UNINTELLIGIBLE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY ANGLES
TO IT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THIS?
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WE'VE AGREED THAT IT WAS A
TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET INTO THE MIDDLE OF A
CRIME SCENE, HAVEN'T WE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES THE
TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT.
MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL
HERE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, NOW LET'S TALK
SPECIFICALLY.
A OKAY.
Q THIS BLANKET, IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT
THIS BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE
CRIME SCENE BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS OF CROSS CONTAMINATION
OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND VAGUE AS TO THE WORD
"TERRIBLE MISTAKE."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: DEPENDING ON THE -- HOW CLEAN THE
BLANKET WAS, THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD AFFECT MY ANSWER.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW
CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, WOULDN'T IT STILL BE A TERRIBLE
MISTAKE TO BRING A BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE RIGHT INTO
THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE?
A I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WAS NOT DONE.
Q PREFER -- I'M ASKING YOU, WAS IT NOT -- LET'S
JUST START WITH THIS -- A MISTAKE.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, IT IS
ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED THE
QUESTION NOW SEVERAL TIMES. YOU'VE GOTTEN THREE OR FOUR
DEFINITIVE ANSWERS.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK --
THE COURT: I AGREE TERRIBLE MISTAKE, MISTAKE,
PREFERENCE NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE, I THINK YOU'VE
ESTABLISHED THE POINT.
MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE'S BACK TO POSSIBLE NOW.
THE COURT: NO. YOU'VE GOT YOUR RECORD.
PROCEED.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE ON.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THAT THIS BLANKET --
WELL, YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT BLANKET WAS
CLEAN OR HAD FIBERS ON IT AND HAIRS, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT IT DID -- AND EVEN
-- WITHDRAWN.
AND EVEN A BLANKET THAT APPEARS TO BE CLEAN CAN
HAVE LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT BECAUSE THE NATURE OF
TRACE EVIDENCE IS THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE IT WITH THE
NAKED EYE?
A SOME TRACE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE WITH THE NAKED
EYE.
Q WELL, THIS KIND OF TRACE EVIDENCE, HAIRS AND
FIBERS, ARE OFTEN NOT NOTICED?
A YOU HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY, YES.
Q SO YOU CAN LOOK AT A BLANKET AND THINK IT WAS
CLEAN AND IT COULD BE JUST FULL OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?
A POSSIBLY. IT WILL HAVE FIBERS BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT MOST BLANKETS ARE MADE FROM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN JUST
WAS MADE UP OF THE BLANKET ITSELF?
A POSSIBLY, YES.
Q AND I MEAN ONE GOES ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE HAIRS
AND FIBERS LATER WITH A STRONG STEREO MICROSCOPE TO PICK
THEM UP, RIGHT?
A SOMETIMES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE CRIME
SCENE THAT DAY, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS IN THE
AREA OF THAT BLANKET?
A YES.
Q AND MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS EVENTUALLY PLACED IN
THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET?
A YES.
Q AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS
AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON
MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
A I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A
SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACING
HIM ON IT.
Q WELL, GIVEN THE NATURE OF TRANSFER, JUST THE
FACT THAT THE BLANKET IS THERE, EVEN IF THEY PUT A PLASTIC
SHEET OVER IT, ISN'T THERE A GRAVE DANGER FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF THE CRIMINALIST OF THESE SECONDARY TRANSFERS
OCCURRING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IS PUT THERE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "GRAVE
DANGER."
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: YOU ALSO FORGOT THE SHEET.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: LET'S START IT THIS WAY.
IF THE PEOPLE -- THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS
FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN MOVING THE
BODY?
A YES.
Q AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME
THAT THE BODY WAS MOVED?
A YES.
Q AND DETECTIVE LANGE COULD HAVE COME IN CONTACT
WITH THE BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING DETECTIVE LANGE CAME
IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, COULD HIS CLOTHING BE A SOURCE
OF SECONDARY TRANSFER FROM THE BLANKET TO MR. GOLDMAN'S
CLOTHING?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.
CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IF HE WAS NOT CAREFUL, YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: COULD MR. JACOBO FROM THE
CORONER'S OFFICE, THE MAN WE SEE -- HE WAS IN A BLUE SUIT
RIGHT THAT DAY?
A I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY.
Q THE MAN IN THE BLUE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S
OFFICE.
A THE JUMPER SUIT?
Q THE JUMPER SUIT.
A OKAY.
Q IF HIS CLOTHING OR BODY OR HANDS CAME INTO
CONTACT WITH THAT BLANKET, HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SORT OF
SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET TO
MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
A POSSIBLY.
Q MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE AS
WELL, SHE WAS THE WOMAN INVESTIGATOR FROM THE CORONER'S
OFFICE, DO YOU RECALL HER?
A I RECALL THERE BEING TWO PERSONNEL THERE, YES.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN?
REMEMBER SEEING HER THERE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A YES.
Q SHE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE GRAY SHOES?
A I DON'T REMEMBER HER SHOES.
Q YOU'VE SEEN HER ON THE VIDEO?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SAME WITH HER, RIGHT? SAME ANSWER? THAT IF
SHE CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, SHE COULD HAVE BEEN
THE SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER AS WELL?
A POSSIBLY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, YOU
COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER?
A TO?
Q TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
A I WAS NOT IN THAT AREA WHEN THE BODIES WERE
BEING PROCESSED.
Q YOU WERE NOT IN THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S
BODY WAS?
A NOT ON THE BLANKET.
Q I'M SORRY?
A NOT ON THE BLANKET. NOT THAT I RECALL.
Q I MEAN, WERE YOU IN THAT AREA WHERE THE BLANKET
WAS AND THEN WENT OVER TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY
WAS?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AT ANY POINT BEFORE MR.
GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, DID YOU WALK THROUGH THE AREA
WHERE THE BLANKET WAS TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY
WAS?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T THINK
I DID.
Q THIS BLANKET COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF
GETTING -- ASSUMING THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN COVERED WITH
HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM PEOPLE WITHIN THE HOME, THAT BLANKET
COULD THEN HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER TO THE
HAIRS AND THE FIBERS IN THE WHOLE AREA OF THAT WALKWAY,
THAT AREA WHERE MISS SIMPSON'S BODY WAS FOUND?
A POSSIBLY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IF AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE GLOVE OR THE HAT
AT BUNDY WERE DRAGGED OUT INTO THAT WALKWAY, THEY COULD
HAVE BECOME CONTAMINATED BY HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE
BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS
COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE
BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMING
FURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT
AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVE
BECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAW THIS BLANKET AT
THE SCENE THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON WHEN YOU WERE PROCESSING
THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU LEFT, THE BLANKET WAS LEFT THERE?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS NOT PICKED UP?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IT HAD BLOOD ON IT?
A YES, IT DID.
Q FRANKLY, FOR ALL YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE HAD
CELLULAR MATERIAL FROM PEOPLE IN THE SIMPSON HOUSEHOLD, TO
WIT, LAYING ON THE BLANKET OR SAT ON THE BLANKET?
A POSSIBLY.
Q YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY "CELLULAR MATERIAL"?
A YOU MEAN MATERIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE DNA EVIDENCE
ON IT?
Q YES.
A YES.
Q SALIVA.
A COULD IT HAVE -- COULD IT HAVE HAD SALIVA
EVIDENCE ON IT?
Q YEAH. NO. SALIVA IS A SOURCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING.
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IS SALIVA A SOURCE OF DNA
EVIDENCE?
A I'M NOT A DNA EXPERT. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT.
Q WELL, IN YOUR TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST, HAVE
YOU BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT SALIVA CAN BE A -- WHEN SPREAD
OVER A SURFACE, CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR FUTURE DNA
ANALYSIS?
A I KNOW IT CAN BE ANALYZED, BUT I'M NOT A DNA
PERSON. I DON'T KNOW IF SALIVA CAN BE -- MAYBE SOME FACT,
SOMETHING IN THE SALIVA THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT CAN BE,
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT SALIVA ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO DNA
ANALYSIS.
Q WELL, SALIVA -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM
AMYLASE?
A I'VE HEARD THE TERM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS
THOUGH.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SALIVA CONTAINS
CELLS FROM INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH?
A IT CAN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND DO YOU KNOW -- HAS ANYBODY EVER TOLD YOU
WHETHER OR NOT THE CELLS FROM THE SALI -- THE CELLS FROM
THE INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR
PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS?
A THE CELLS INSIDE THE MOUTH CAN BE, YES.
Q AND YOU EVEN HEARD OF EXEMPLARS BEING TAKEN
WHERE SOMEONE WOULD PUT A COTTON SWAB AND SWAB THE INSIDE
OF SOMEONE'S MOUTH TO TAKE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR
PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?
A OF THE CELLS, YES.
Q YES.
AND THE CELLS FROM INSIDE THE MOUTH, YOU WOULD
EXPECT BASED ON YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE IN SALIVA AND
A SOURCE OF DNA ANALYSIS?
A I DON'T KNOW HOW EASILY THE CELLS FROM THE
MOUTH ARE TRANSMITTED INTO SALIVA. I'VE NEVER DONE A STUDY
ON IT AND I'VE NEVER WORKED SEROLOGY.
Q FROM YOUR OWN COMMON SENSE, WOULD YOU EXPECT
THAT SALIVA CONTAINS CELLS FROM --
THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT, GIVEN HIS ANSWER,
YOU'RE SPECULATING.
MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THIS BLANKET -- WELL,
WITHDRAWN.
WOULD YOU AGREE LOOKING BACK THAT THIS BLANKET
COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A YES.
Q AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO
KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM MR.
SIMPSON, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THEIR CHILDREN OR THE
DOG KATO?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT'S
ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO THE WORD "IMPORTANT."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW
IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO?
A POSSIBLY, YES.
Q IMPORTANT IF IT EVEN HAD HAIRS OR FIBERS THAT
WERE CONSISTENT WITH MR. GOLDMAN IF HE HAD EVER BEEN IN THE
HOUSE OR LAIN OR SAT ON THAT BLANKET?
A POSSIBLY.
Q BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE
AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
A IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: INCIDENTALLY, YOU'VE OBSERVED
THE VIDEOS?
A YES.
Q AND HAVE YOU SEEN IN ANY VIDEOS THAT THE
BLANKET OVER THE -- OVER ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S
BACK OR BODY WHEN IT WAS STILL AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A I HAVE NEVER SEEN VIDEOS OF THAT, NO.
Q YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A VIDEO THAT SEEM TO HAVE --
WITH A BLANKET OVER HER BACK?
A I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF I
HAVE OR NOT.
Q OKAY.
NOW --
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD WANT
TO SHOW MR. FUNG A VIDEO.
DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FIRST?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES.
MR. SCHECK: MAYBE MR. GOLDBERG CAN PREVIEW IT ON THE
MONITOR. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A SEGMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN
BEFORE.
MR. GOLDBERG: ACTUALLY WHAT?
THE COURT: MAYBE WE CAN VIEW IT ON COUNSEL'S MONITOR
WITHOUT DISPLAYING IT TO THE JURY.
(AT 2:51 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE
WAS PLAYED.)
(AT 2:54 P.M., THE PLAYING
OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)
THE COURT: COUNSEL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS
SEGMENT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S PROCEED.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW IT --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS
SEGMENT, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU'VE JUST VIEWED.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN IT IN ITS ENTIRETY,
BUT I'VE SEEN PORTIONS OF IT, YES.
(AT 2:55, A VIDEOTAPE WAS
PLAYED.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THAT IS DETECTIVE LANGE
TALKING WITH MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT'S DETECTIVE LANGE PUTTING THE BLANKET
DOWN OVER MISS SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q NOW, LOOKING AT THIS SEGMENT, SEE IF YOU CAN
TELL US IF YOU RECALL -- LET'S STOP IT RIGHT THERE, OKAY?
NOW --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S AT 1:18:17:17.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AT THIS POINT, DO YOU KNOW
WHICH OF THE TWO VICTIMS WAS BEING REMOVED BY THE CORONER'S
OFFICE AT THIS POINT IN TIME?
A I -- BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS MR.
GOLDMAN.
Q AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN AT THE SCENE BEFORE
THIS TOOK PLACE TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A APPROXIMATELY FIVE, 10 MINUTES.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, MISS NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY HAD NOT YET BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
SCENE?
A SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MOVED.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, HAD SHE BEEN TURNED
OVER ON HER BACK?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: TURNED OVER ON HER BACK. I BELIEVE SO.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN YOU GOT TO THE CRIME
SCENE, DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE MISS NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE POSITION
WHERE YOU WERE INFORMED IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND?
A I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
Q SO BY THE TIME YOU HAD GOT THERE, SHE HAD BEEN
ALREADY -- HER BODY HAD ALREADY BEEN TURNED OVER ON ITS
BACK BY THE CORONERS?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q SO YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER
BACK, EXPOSED BACK?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE ANY BLOOD
DROPS ON HER BACK?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IF YOU HAD SEEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS ON HER
BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SWATCH THEM AND REMOVE
THEM FOR FUTURE BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER HE
WOULD BE ABLE TO.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE ON THE BODY
IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CORONER.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: BUT WORKING TOGETHER, THE
CORONERS, THE DETECTIVES AND THE CRIMINALISTS CAN DECIDE
THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO COLLECT
EVIDENCE FROM A BODY FOUND AT A HOMICIDE SCENE?
A IT'S POSSIBLE. USUALLY THE CORONER WILL HAVE
HIS OWN OR THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR OWN
CRIMINALISTS THOUGH.
Q BUT THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT CRIMINALIST WASN'T
THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THIS IS ALREADY 10:15 IN THE AFTERNOON? IN
THE MORNING?
A YES.
Q AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE DIDN'T HAVE THEIR
CRIMINALIST THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU WERE THE ONLY CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE?
A NO. MISS MAZZOLA WAS THERE ALSO.
Q AND MISS MAZZOLA, RIGHT?
A AND CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON.
Q AND BETWEEN -- THAT CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST
JOHNSON, HE'S A SUPERVISOR, RIGHT?
A YES, HE IS.
Q AND YOU'VE SEEN HIM IN VIDEOS? HE'S A HEAVYSET
GUY IN A BLUE BLAZER?
A VERY TALL ALSO.
Q TALL? OKAY.
NOW, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE CRIMINALIST
AT THE SCENE, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CORONER'S CRIMINALISTS
AT THE SCENE, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
REMOVE THE BLOOD DROPS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK?
A NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
Q WELL, IF THE CRIMINALIST FROM THE CORONER'S
OFFICE ISN'T THERE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WHO COULD
DO IT?
A THE -- IT MIGHT WAIT UNTIL THE BODY WAS
TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND IT WOULD BE
DONE THERE.
Q BUT, MR. FUNG, IF THE BODY IS TURNED OVER ON
ITS BACK, ON HER BACK, THAT COULD SMEAR CROSS CON -- AND
CONTAMINATE THOSE BLOOD DROPS?
A IT'S POSSIBLE.
Q AND WOULDN'T IT BE THE WISE PRACTICE, THE SOUND
PRACTICE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST, BE IT FROM THE CORONER'S
OFFICE OR SID, REMOVE THOSE BLOOD DROPS BEFORE MISS SIMPSON
WAS TURNED OVER ON HER BACK?
A IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE.
Q PREFERABLE?
A YES.
Q WELL, IF IT WASN'T GOING TO BE DONE BY A
CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE, BE IT FROM YOUR OFFICE OR THE
CORONER'S OFFICE, AND SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK, IT'S
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, MR. FUNG, IT'S YOUR
TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE TOO LATE TO REMOVE
THOSE BLOOD DROPS FROM HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS TURNED OVER?
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU GOT THERE, SHE WAS
ALREADY TURNED OVER ON HER BACK?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q WELL, WHEN SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK --
WELL, WITHDRAWN.
THE BLANKET THAT WAS ON HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS
TURNED OVER, THAT MIGHT CONTAIN TRANSFERS OF THE BLOOD FROM
HER BACK?
A POSSIBLY.
Q AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IF IT HAD
BEEN SECURED, BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY?
A YES.
Q AND IF THAT ANALYSIS -- WITHDRAWN.
OKAY. LET'S GET BACK TO THE PICTURE.
THE COURT: ARE YOU SHIFTING RIGHT NOW?
MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: ARE YOU SHIFTING OR YOU WANT TO FINISH?
MR. SCHECK: I'M GOING -- I DID A SEQUE. I'M SORRY.
I'M GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE VIDEO.
THE COURT: I NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS.
ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
10-MINUTE RECESS.
PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T
DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES --
LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE ADMONITION IS VERY
IMPORTANT AND A NECESSARY PART OF THE COURT PROCEEDING EACH
TIME.
PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS; DO NOT DISCUSS
THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE
CASE, CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED TO YOU OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU
WITH REGARD TO THE CASE.
WE'LL TAKE A RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. FUNG, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL PARTIES ARE
AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT.
WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR
JURY PANEL.
MR. DENNIS FUNG IS ON THE WITNESS STAND
UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK.
AND MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
Q MR. FUNG, WE LEFT OFF WITH THE VIDEO THAT IS
STOPPED AT 1:18:17:03.
NOW, WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM, DO YOU RECALL?
A COMING FROM THE CAGE AREA IN THE DIRT.
Q UH-HUH.
AND UMM, WHERE HAD YOU BEEN IN THE CAGE AREA
PRIOR TO STEPPING INTO VIEW HERE?
A I DON'T THINK I WAS MUCH DEEPER THAN TWO FEET
INTO THE CAGE AREA.
Q UH-HUH.
AND FROM THE MOMENT THAT YOU ARRIVED AT THE
CRIME SCENE TO THE POINT THAT WE SEE DEPICTED HERE, HAD YOU
SEEN ANYBODY ELSE WALK THROUGH THAT CAGED-IN AREA?
A YES.
Q DETECTIVE LANGE?
A I'M NOT SURE WHO, BUT I DO RECALL PEOPLE
WALKING IN THERE.
Q ANYONE ELSE?
A I DON'T RECALL WHO EXACTLY.
Q MORE THAN ONE PERSON?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU SPENT SOME TIME AND HAD SOME TRAINING
IN TAKING SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS?
A YES.
Q AND THOSE SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS CAN BE TAKEN
FROM SOIL?
A YES.
Q IF THERE IS AN IMPRESSION IN SOIL, ONE CAN USE
A VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES OF CASTING TO LIFT THOSE SHOE
IMPRESSIONS FROM SOIL?
A YES.
Q IF THERE HAD BEEN SOME KILLER OR PERPETRATOR
HIDING IN THAT -- REAR OF THAT CAGED-IN AREA, THAT
PERPETRATOR COULD HAVE LEFT SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS IN THE
SOIL?
A POSSIBLY.
Q AND IF YOU HAD ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE
BEFORE PEOPLE BEGAN WALKING INTO THAT AREA AND HAD OBSERVED
SUCH IMPRESSIONS, YOU COULD HAVE DONE A CASTING ON THEM?
A IF SOME WERE THERE, YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER ANY WERE THERE
BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD BEEN WALKING IN AND OUT OF THERE BEFORE
YOU ARRIVED?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU ABLE TO CONDUCT A
METHODICAL SYSTEMATIC UNHURRIED INVESTIGATION OF THE SOIL
OF THE CAGED-IN AREA WITH MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN PLACE AS IT
WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND?
A NO.
Q AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE PARTICULAR TRAINING
TO DO?
A THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I AM TRAINED TO DO,
YES.
Q NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU WERE DOING IN THAT
CAGED-IN AREA JUST PRIOR TO THE PICTURE WE SEE ON THE
SCREEN?
A DETECTIVE LANGE HAD ASKED IF HE COULD SEE THE
GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM AND I BROUGHT THE BAG OVER TO HIM.
Q WHEN DID HE ASK YOU TO DO THIS?
A SHORTLY AFTER I GOT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU SITUATED WHEN HE CAME AND
MADE THIS REQUEST?
A I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.
Q WERE YOU IN THE AREA WHERE MISS NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON'S BODY WAS AT THAT POINT?
A WHERE IT WAS?
Q YES.
A OR WHERE IT HAD BEEN MOVED FROM?
Q WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED YOU SAW HER BODY?
A YES.
Q AND YOU SAW THE -- BY THIS POINT I THINK YOU
HAVE TOLD US THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAD
TURNED HER OVER?
A SHE WAS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER EXPRESSION, BEING
WRAPPED UP.
Q YES.
AND WAS IT THAT POINT THAT DETECTIVE LANGE COME
OUT OF THIS AREA AND TALKED TO YOU OUT ON THE SIDEWALK IN
FRONT OF THIS CRIME SCENE?
A AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE HE
REQUESTED TO -- REQUESTED SEEING THE GLOVE.
Q YOU CAN'T RECALL?
A I DON'T RECALL.
Q BUT AFTER HE REQUESTED YOU TO GO TO BRING HIM
THE GLOVE -- THAT IS WHAT HE REQUESTED? HE REQUESTED THAT
-- HE SAID HE WANTED TO SEE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND WHEN HE SAID, "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM," DID YOU SAY TO HIM, "DETECTIVE
LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU COME SEE IT IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK"?
A I TOLD HIM THAT I -- ONCE I BROUGHT THE GLOVE
TO HIM THAT --
Q NO, NO. I'M ASKING AT THE MOMENT HE CAME AND
MADE THIS REQUEST TO YOU DID YOU SAY TO HIM --
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THAT WASN'T THE
QUESTION. LET THE WITNESS ANSWER THE QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION.
THE COURT: REASK THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AT THE TIME THAT DETECTIVE
LANGE CAME TO YOU AND ASKED YOU TO SHOW HIM THE ROCKINGHAM
GLOVE, DID YOU SAY TO HIM, "DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU
COME SEE IT AT THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK, IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD
IDEA FOR ME TO BRING THIS GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM INTO THE
MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE"?
A I DIDN'T SAY THAT TO HIM.
Q DID YOU SAY WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?
A WHEN HE WANTED ME TO REMOVE OR -- WANTED TO GET
A BETTER LOOK AT THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM, I TOLD HIM TO
-- THAT I WOULD NOT REMOVE THE GLOVE FROM THE BAG, IT WOULD
HAVE TO REMAIN IN THE BAG, AND IF HE WANTED TO SEE A BETTER
LOOK OF IT, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO SEE IT IN THE CRIME SCENE
TRUCK.
Q WELL, AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO
SHOW HIM THE GLOVE AND BRING IT BACK INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE
CRIME SCENE, YOU KNEW THAT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA, DIDN'T
YOU?
A I KNEW THAT --
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO "VERY GOOD IDEA."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS
WITH THE EVIDENCE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT
A VERY SENSIBLE REQUEST, DIDN'T YOU?
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO WHICH REQUEST.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE
REQUESTED THAT YOU BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO HIM, YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT
THERE WAS A TERRIBLE DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?
A I KNEW THERE WAS A DANGER FOR
CROSS-CONTAMINATION, YES.
Q AND YOU KNEW WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST OF YOU
THAT THAT REQUEST WAS A BASIC VIOLATION OF SOUND CRIME
SCENE PROCEDURES?
A I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN --
WITH THE GLOVE WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO HIM, YES.
Q WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, DIDN'T
YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, IT IS FOOLISH TO EVEN TAKE A CHANCE
IN BRINGING THAT GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME
SCENE?
A HE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR -- AT THAT POINT
FOR HIS INVESTIGATION.
Q WELL, BUT YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST
TO YOU THAT IT WASN'T A SENSIBLE REQUEST?
A AGAIN, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, I KNEW I WOULD
HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE EVIDENCE.
Q NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS A SIMPLE ONE, SIR.
WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, YOU KNEW IT
WAS NOT A SENSIBLE REQUEST?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THAT IS
ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE MOMENT
THAT HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU IT WAS CREATING A RISK OF
UNNECESSARY -- AN UNNECESSARY RISK OF CONTAMINATION?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I KNEW THERE WAS A RISK, BUT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO HIM AT THAT TIME TO FURTHER HIS INVESTIGATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST
TO YOU DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO
TAKE, THAT HE COULD HAVE JUST COME BACK RIGHT TO THE TRUCK
AND SEE IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND
ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WERE YOU IN ANY WAY
FEARFUL OF QUESTIONING DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT WHEN HE
ASKED YOU TO BRING THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE RIGHT INTO THE
MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?
A I WAS NOT FEARFUL OF HIM, NO.
Q WERE YOU IN ANY WAY INTIMIDATED BY HIM?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU IN ANY WAY RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS
JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVED IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS A
DANGEROUS REQUEST?
A I DID HAVE SOME CONCERN AND I TOOK WHAT I FELT
WAS -- I DREW A LINE WHERE I WOULD NOT TAKE THE BAG OR TAKE
THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG FOR HIM.
Q WELL, AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU,
YOU ARE NOW TELLING US THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT IS THE SAME
--
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU SAY YOU HAD CONCERNS AT
THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT HAS BEEN
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS
TO DETECTIVE LANGE AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO TO
THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK AND BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE
OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. DIFFERENT QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID; I MAY HAVE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MAY HAVE?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I DID.
Q NOW, YOU BROUGHT THE GLOVE -- HOW DID YOU GET
WITH THE -- THAT BAG THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND, THAT IS
THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?
A THE GLOVE WAS IN THAT BAG, YES.
Q WELL, HOW DID YOU COME -- NOT JUST TO TAKE THE
GLOVE FROM THE TRUCK TO THE AREA OF -- OF IN FRONT OF THE
STEPS, BUT ALL THE WAY IN BACK, ALL THE WAY INTO THAT
CAGED-IN AREA? HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT?
A I DON'T EXACT -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROUTE
THAT I TOOK. I PROBABLY CAME IN THROUGH THE SAME WAY I
CAME IN OR EXITED.
Q MR. FUNG, DID YOU EVER COLLECT A PAGER IN THE
CAGED-IN AREA?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU HAVE -- COULD THAT SHOT WITH YOU WITH
THE BAG IN YOUR HAND BE OF THE PAGER IN THE BAG?
A NO.
Q NO? YOU HAVE A DISTINCT RECOLLECTION THAT YOU
ACTUALLY TOOK THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN A BAG, WALKED INTO
THE CRIME SCENE AREA, WENT INTO THE CAGED-IN AREA AND THEN
WERE COMING OUT AS WE SEE DEPICTED IN THIS SHOT WITH THE
ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE BAG?
A YES.
Q UMM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT BEFORE YOU CAME HERE
DETECTIVE LANGE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE
IN THAT BAG?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE WITNESS: I --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: SORRY.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU ARE NOT WEARING GLOVES
IN THAT PICTURE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US,
IS THAT WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE MADE THIS REQUEST TO YOU, YOU
RESOLVED IN YOUR OWN MIND, ALL RIGHT, I KNOW IT IS
DANGEROUS, BUT I WILL BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE AREA OF THE
CRIME SCENE, BUT I WON'T OPEN IT UP FOR HIM?
A BUT I WON'T TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG.
Q WON'T TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG?
A YES.
Q HAD YOU RESOLVED IN YOUR OWN MIND WHETHER YOU
WOULD EVEN OPEN IT?
A I WOULD HAVE OPENED IT UP.
Q YOU WOULD HAVE OPENED IT UP?
A YES.
Q DID YOU OPEN IT UP WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CRIME
SCENE, HAVE HIM LOOK?
A I DON'T THINK SO.
Q WELL, ANOTHER THING ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE IS
THAT SOMETIMES IT BECOMES AIRBORNE?
A SOMETIMES.
Q HAIRS AND FIBERS THAT MAY GET ON CLOTHING OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE GATHERING EVIDENCE CAN BECOME AIRBORNE?
THAT IS HOW THE TRANSFER OCCURS, RIGHT?
A THEORETICALLY, YES.
Q AND WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT OPENING UP THE
BAG WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE SAME AREA WHERE PEOPLE
WERE MILLING AROUND GATHERING AND HANDLING THE EVIDENCE AT
THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN
EVIDENCE ABOUT "MILLING."
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING THE BAG
WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE AND OPENING IT UP WHILE EVIDENCE
COLLECTORS WERE IN THE AREA?
A I WAS -- MISS MAZZOLA AND I WERE THE EVIDENCE
COLLECTORS.
Q WELL, THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THERE FROM THE
CORONER'S OFFICE WHO WERE IN THE AREA WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE
OPENED UP THAT BAG, RIGHT?
A THEY WERE THERE TO PROCESS THE BODIES.
Q WELL, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PURPOSE, THEY ARE
PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE TRACE EVIDENCE ON THEIR CLOTHING
WHICH COULD BECOME AIRBORNE?
A TRACE EVIDENCE IS USUALLY MADE THROUGH CONTACT,
SUCH AS RUBBING ONE ITEM AGAINST ANOTHER. I -- I'M NOT --
IT CAN HAPPEN THROUGH AIRBORNE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE USUAL
WAY FOR --
Q WELL --
A -- THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO BE DONE.
Q YOU ARE SAYING IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AND BASED ON
YOUR EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE IT IS NOT A CONCERN OF YOURS
THAT THESE HAIRS AND FIBERS COULD BE -- THAT HAIRS AND
FIBERS CAN BE TRANSFERRED OFF PEOPLE'S CLOTHING WHEN THEY
ARE MOVING AROUND AND FALL ONTO OTHER AREAS?
A IT CAN HAPPEN, YES.
Q AND DETECTIVE FUNG, WEREN'T YOU --
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE.
THE COURT: RESTATE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DETECTIVE -- DETECTIVE -- I'M
SORRY.
MR. FUNG, WEREN'T YOU SERIOUSLY CONCERNED THAT
IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO OPEN UP THAT BAG CONTAINING
THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO GIVE
DETECTIVE LANGE A LOOK?
A I DID HAVE MY CONCERNS AND I TOLD YOU I WAS
GOING TO BE CAREFUL IF I DID HAVE TO OPEN UP THE BAG.
Q WELL, YOU ARE TELLING US NOW -- IS IT YOUR
TESTIMONY YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT YOU OPENED UP
THE BAG?
A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION I DID NOT OPEN
UP THE BAG.
Q WELL, YOU ARE NOW MORE CERTAIN OF THAT ANSWER
THAN YOU WERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DIDN'T YOU TELL US JUST A FEW
MINUTES AGO YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU OPENED UP
THE BAG TO HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE LOOK INTO IT?
A I'M NOT SURE.
Q YOU ARE NOT SURE?
A I'M NOT SURE.
Q IT IS FAIR ENOUGH TO SAY, ISN'T IT, THAT IF YOU
WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE?
A I WOULDN'T CALL IT A MISTAKE, NO.
Q WELL, WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE
DOING AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGMENT AT THE REQUEST OF
DETECTIVE LANGE?
A IDEALLY THE GLOVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT AT
THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK, YES.
Q AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE RELUCTANT
TO JUST TELL DETECTIVE LANGE, LOOK, I'M NOT BRINGING IT TO
THE SCENE, COME LOOK AT IT AT THE TRUCK?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK I WAS RELUCTANT, NO.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: YOU HAD NO -- AND AT THAT BUNDY
CRIME SCENE DID YOU AT ANY POINT HAVE RELUCTANCE TO
QUESTION DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE
DONE IN TERMS OF GATHERING EVIDENCE?
A DID I HAVE -- YES. YES, I DID.
Q YOU WERE RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT
ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN TERMS OF GATHERING EVIDENCE?
A I DID QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT.
Q YOU DID QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT? COULD YOU TELL
US ABOUT WHEN AND HOW YOU QUESTIONED HIS JUDGMENT?
A NO. I -- THERE WERE -- THERE WERE -- THERE
ARE -- YOU ALWAYS SECOND GUESS SOMEBODY WHEN YOU ARE GOING
INTO A CAME SCENE, SAY, HUM, WAS THIS DONE, WAS THAT DONE,
AND YOU ASK THEM WHAT WAS DONE AND WHAT WASN'T DONE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU TELL US WHICH QUESTIONS YOU ASKED
DETECTIVE LANGE THAT IN YOUR TERMS WERE SECOND GUESSES?
A I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD LOOKED FOR SHOEPRINTS IN
THE DIRT AREA.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU HE HADN'T?
A HE TOLD ME HE HAD LOOKED FOR THEM BUT DID NOT
FIND ANY.
Q WELL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE QUESTIONING -- THESE
ARE MATTERS WHERE YOU WERE QUESTIONING HIS JUDGMENT, RIGHT?
A WELL, I ASKED HIM -- THESE WERE THINGS I ASKED
HIM ABOUT.
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT --
Q BY MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING YOU FOR THINGS WHERE
YOU WERE QUESTIONING HIS JUDGMENT.
TELL US ABOUT SECOND GUESSES YOU MADE OF
DETECTIVE LANGE.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THE
WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE HIS ANSWER TO THE FIRST
QUESTION.
THE COURT: HAD YOU FINISHED YOUR ANSWER, MR. FUNG?
THE WITNESS: I FORGOT THE FIRST QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: REASK THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD -- NOW, IN THIS
FRAME DO YOU RECALL WHERE YOU ARE STEPPING?
A NOT EXACTLY, NO.
Q DID YOU HAVE YOUR HANDS OUT ON THE -- FOR
SUPPORT ON THE GATE?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE, AS YOU ARE WALKING WITH
YOUR HEAD DOWN, THE POSITION OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT?
A I WAS LOOKING WHERE I WAS STEPPING, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE GLOVE AND THE HAT?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I WAS -- WHAT EXACTLY I WAS
SEEING AT THAT POINT.
Q WELL, IN THAT AREA WAS THERE NOT A GLOVE AND
THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINED THE PRESCRIPTION
GLASSES?
A YES.
Q AND I TAKE IT THAT THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT WE
LOOKED AT EARLIER WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN?
A AGAIN, FROM THIS VIDEO I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW
WHAT I WAS SEEING AT THIS POINT.
Q OKAY.
OTHER THAN -- SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE
LOOKING DOWN AT THOSE OBJECTS AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DON'T.
MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE CAN --
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE DO THAT, PERHAPS
THE FRAME NUMBER SHOULD BE PUT ON THE RECORD.
THE COURT: WE DID THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: OH, IT WAS DONE? THIS ONE? OKAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WHERE ARE YOU GOING THERE,
DO YOU RECALL?
A I BELIEVE I WAS PUTTING THE -- OR BRINGING THE
GLOVE BACK TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.
Q AND WHERE IS DETECTIVE LANGE NOW?
A HE IS STILL BACK AT THE -- IN THE CAGE AREA.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE IS STANDING IN
RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE, AS BEST YOU CAN
SEE IT?
A NO, I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW, SIR?
A I'M STANDING BY.
Q DO YOU RECALL THIS MOMENT, OTHER THAN JUST
SEEING IT HERE IN THE VIDEO?
A NO.
Q AND YOU ARE NOW WIPING -- YOU JUST WIPED SWEAT
FROM YOUR BROW AND WERE GRASPING YOUR GLASSES; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
BEING TAKEN NOW OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY, VARIOUS PARTS OF IT?
A I DON'T RECALL.
Q DID YOU OBSERVE ANY OF THAT PROCESS WITH
RESPECT TO EITHER MR. GOLDMAN OR MISS SIMPSON?
A I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT, NO.
Q YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT DONE AT ALL?
A I DON'T RECALL SEEING ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS BEING
TAKEN. I KNOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS PRESENT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I -- YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION AND
WERE LAUGHING WITH A FEW GENTLEMEN THERE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT? DO YOU
RECALL?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q AND THAT MAN IN THE RED HAIR IN THE BLUE
BLAZER, THAT IS CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND AT THE TIME THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BEING
MOVED OUT AND DETECTIVE LANGE IS WALKING THROUGH THE SCENE,
YOU ARE LOOKING BACK, DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE LOCATION OF
THE ENVELOPE, THE GLOVE AND THE HAT?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE WALKING BACK
THROUGH AS THE BODY IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. I THINK WE CAN
CUT IT NOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HARRIS.
NOW, DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE
TERM "CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE"?
A CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE?
Q YES.
A NO.
Q WELL, DID YOU EVER HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH
DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO HIS APPROACH TO GATHERING EVIDENCE AT
THIS BUNDY CRIME SCENE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND QUITE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING
AT.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU HAD A
DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE LANGE ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE AND
HOW TO PROCEED?
A HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO THE TYPE OF
EVIDENCE THAT HE WANTED COLLECTED AND WHAT HE FELT WAS
IMPORTANT AND WHAT AREAS WERE PRESERVED, YES.
Q DID HE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO YOU THAT THIS
WAS A CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE WHERE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSE TO THE
VICTIMS AND THAT HE HAD MADE A DETERMINATION FOR THAT
REASON TO REMOVE THE VICTIMS PRIOR TO COLLECTING THE
EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE AND THE
VICTIMS WERE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER?
A I DON'T HAVE -- I DON'T THINK HE EVER USED THAT
TERM, "CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE" TO ME.
Q WELL, DID HE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO YOU THAT
THE REASON THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE THE BODY
BEFORE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THIS WAS A CLOSE-IN
CRIME SCENE OR THIS WAS A CRIME SCENE WHERE SINCE THE
BODIES OF THE VICTIMS AND THE EVIDENCE WERE CLOSE TOGETHER,
IT WAS SENSIBLE TO REMOVE THE BODIES BEFORE COLLECTING THE
EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR
HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN,
PLEASE?
MR. SCHECK: SURE.
Q DID DETECTIVE LANGE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO
YOU THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THIS CRIME SCENE
TO REMOVE THE VICTIMS PRIOR TO THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE, UMM,
THE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED CLOSE TO THE BODIES OF THE
VICTIMS?
A HE DID NOT EXPRESS THAT TO ME AT THE CRIME
SCENE.
Q AT SOME SUBSEQUENT TIME DID HE EXPRESS THAT
VIEW TO YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT?
A THAT WAS MAYBE TWO -- A WEEK OR TWO LATER.
Q AND THAT WAS ON AN OCCASION WHEN YOU WERE
HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH HIM AS TO HOW HE PROCESSED THE
CRIME SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND ON THAT OCCASION DID YOU EXPRESS THE VIEW
TO HIM THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY FOOLISH TO REMOVE THE BODIES
OF THE VICTIMS AND DRAG IT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE
BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS THE VIEW TO
DETECTIVE LANGE THAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT AS A CRIMINALIST THE
EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES WERE
REMOVED PRECISELY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WERE CLOSE TO THE
BODIES?
A I NEVER -- I NEVER SAID THAT TO HIM, NO.
Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT TO HIM?
A I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q NOW, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CRIMINALIST, MR.
FUNG, ISN'T IT JUST BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN
THE EVIDENCE ARE CLOSE TO THE BODIES THAT IT IS BETTER FOR
THE CRIMINALIST TO COLLECT IT, PHOTOGRAPH IT, DOCUMENT IT,
BEFORE YOU REMOVE THE BODIES?
A THERE ARE VERY -- THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO
PROCESS A CRIME SCENE AND I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTORS
THAT WENT INTO DETECTIVE LANGE'S DECISION.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE
AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, WEREN'T YOU AT
ALL CONCERNED THAT THE BODIES WERE BEING REMOVED WHEN THEY
WERE IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE
GOING TO HAVE TO COLLECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, WE JUST SAW A PICTURE WHERE YOU ARE
STANDING THERE WITH CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST STEVEN JOHNSON?
A YES.
Q HE IS ONE OF YOUR SUPERVISORS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE STANDING THERE WITH OTHER
DETECTIVES?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE STANDING AROUND THIS CRIME SCENE
WHILE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS BEING REMOVED FROM THE SOIL
CAGED-IN AREA?
A YES.
Q AND THAT OPENING BETWEEN THE GATE AND THE
BEGINNING OF THE CONCRETE STAIRWELL IS ABOUT THIRTY INCHES,
ISN'T IT?
A APPROXIMATELY.
Q AND DIDN'T YOU HAVE PROFOUND CONCERNS THAT IN
MOVING MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY THROUGH THAT AREA THEY WERE GOING
TO MOVE -- THEY WERE GOING TO ALTER THE CONDITION OF THE
GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS RIGHT AGAINST
THE TILE?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO PROFOUNDLY
CONCERNED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHEN I SPEAK AND RULE ON AN
OBJECTION, JUST FOR THE RECORD LET ME FINISH BEFORE YOU
LAUNCH INTO THE NEXT QUESTION.
MR. SCHECK: MY APOLOGIES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE TERM IS VAGUE.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S
BODY WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN THROUGH THIS THIRTY-INCH AREA
THAT IT COULD DISTURB, ALTER THE PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, THE
GLOVE AND THE KNIT HAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO "DISTURB, ALTER."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, I'M SORRY, I NEED TO INTERRUPT YOU
JUST FOR A MOMENT. WE NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF COMFORT BREAK.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MEMBERS OF THE JURY, IF YOU WANT TO STAND
AND STRETCH A BIT, GO AHEAD.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: AUDIENCE AS WELL.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN.
MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY, COULD THE LAST QUESTION BE READ BACK?
I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: THE LAST QUESTION WAS DID YOU HAVE
CONCERN THAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN
THROUGH THE THIRTY-INCH AREA THAT IT COULD DISTURB OR ALTER
THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE PRESCRIPTION EYEGLASSES, THE
GLOVE AND THE KNIT HAT?
THE WITNESS: I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
CONCERNED BECAUSE MR. GOLDMAN WAS MOVED BY THE TIME I GOT
BACK FROM THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: BUT WHEN YOU ARRIVED MR.
GOLDMAN HADN'T BEEN MOVED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO DETECTIVE LANGE,
WELL, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T MOVE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY OR THE
BODY OF THE SECOND VICTIM THERE THROUGH THIS THIRTY-INCH
AREA WHERE YOU HAVE THE GLOVE, THE ENVELOPE AND THE HAT?
A I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH DETECTIVE LANGE BEFORE THAT POINT.
Q WELL, DON'T YOU THINK THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT
THING TO TELL HIM?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE TIME THAT
THAT WAS A MATTER THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: THAT IS OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS GOING TO MOVE MR.
GOLDMAN.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WERE YOU SHOCKED THAT HE
DIRECTED THE CORONERS OR PERMITTED THE CORONERS TO MOVE MR.
GOLDMAN THROUGH THAT EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU SURPRISED?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU CONCERNED WHEN YOU SAW
THAT HE HAD PERMITTED THE CORONERS OR DIRECTED THEM TO MOVE
MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY THROUGH THAT EVIDENCE?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WAS CONCERNED, YES.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO
CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST STEVE JOHNSON WHO WAS STANDING RIGHT
THERE?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DID CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST
JOHNSON, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SAY ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT IT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT DID YOU SAY?
A I SAID -- I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE MOVING OF THE
BODIES.
Q YOU EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THAT WAS A BAD IDEA?
A I EXPRESSED TO HIM THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
IT, YES.
Q AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HE NEVER DID ANYTHING
ABOUT IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID HE DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ONE OF THE, UMM -- LET'S
START THIS WAY:
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE CUED UP TWO PICTURES THAT I
HAVE SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTOR OF THE GLOVE AND I WOULD LIKE
WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO SHOW THEM TO THE WITNESS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: AND TO THE JURY.
MR. SCHECK: CAN WE GET THAT ON THE SCREEN?
Q MR. FUNG, AS I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT HERE, TO
THE LEFT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT WITH AN
EVIDENCE TAG THAT SAYS "102," CORRECT?
A I CAN'T MAKE OUT THE HAT FROM THE -- FROM THE
SCREEN, BUT I DO SEE THE GLOVE.
Q YOU SEE THE GLOVE. LOOK CAREFULLY, THE CORNER?
A ON THE RIGHT I SEE A VERY DARK AREA NEXT TO THE
GLOVE. I CAN'T MAKE IT OUT AS A HAT, THOUGH.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND TO THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, WITH THE
PICTURE OF THE FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, DO YOU SEE
THAT?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PICTURE BEFORE, CORRECT?
A TODAY, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PICTURE LIKE THAT BEFORE WITH
A FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, PERHAPS ON THE GRAND JURY?
A PERHAPS, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
Q WELL, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO COMING INTO THIS
COURTROOM HAVE YOU SEEN THAT PICTURE -- A PICTURE LIKE THAT
DEPICTING THE GLOVE IN THAT POSITION?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS AND
IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: WE HAVE. WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: HE HAS IDENTIFIED WHAT IT IS.
MR. SCHECK: OKAY.
Q MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS ISN'T IT CLEAR TO
YOU THAT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THE ONE WITH THE FINGER
POINTING AT THE GLOVE, THE GLOVE IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION
THAN THE ONE TO THE LEFT?
A YES.
Q THE GLOVE HAS BEEN TURNED AROUND COMPLETELY,
HASN'T IT?
A IT IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, YES.
Q WELL, COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS VIOLATES THE BEST
EVIDENCE RULE. THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
IF YOU CAN TELL.
THE WITNESS: ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THE
OPENING OR WRIST PORTION APPEARS TO BE TOWARDS THE PAVEMENT
AND IN THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT THE GLOVE IS IN A DIFFERENT
POSITION WITH THE WRIST IN ANOTHER ORIENTATION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: AND THERE IS SOME
DEBRIS --
THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED. ALL RIGHT.
THIS SIDE-BY-SIDE PHOTO IMAGE WE WILL MARK AS
1075, DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1075.
(DEFT'S 1075 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THIS PICTURE TO THE
LEFT, THE ONE WITH THE EVIDENCE MARKER ON IT, WHAT APPEAR
TO BE DRAG MARKS?
A YOU MEAN COMING FROM THE UPPER LEFT-HAND
CORNER?
Q YES.
A COULD BE, YES.
Q AND YOU SEE DEBRIS NOW ON TOP OF THE TILES?
A I SEE WHAT APPEAR TO BE LEAVES ON THE TILES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, HAS THIS DISCREPANCY EVER BEEN POINTED OUT
TO YOU BEFORE YOU CAME INTO THIS COURTROOM?
A I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PICTURE -- I DON'T RECALL
SEEING THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, SO NO.
Q NO ONE HAS EVER -- IT HAS NEVER COME TO YOUR
ATTENTION BEFORE COMING INTO THIS COURTROOM THAT THE
PICTURE OF THE GLOVE ON THE RIGHT THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE YOU
ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE SHOWED THE GLOVE IN A DIFFERENT
POSITION THAN THE PICTURE THAT YOU DIRECTED BE TAKEN ON
JUNE 13TH?
A IT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, NO.
Q HAS ANYBODY -- DID IT -- DID YOU INQUIRE OF
ANYBODY ON JUNE 13TH, WHEN YOU TOOK THE PICTURE ON THE
LEFT, WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED INTO A
DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IT ORIGINALLY WAS AFTER MR.
GOLDMAN'S BODY HAD BEEN WE MOVED?
A I ASSUMED THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED.
Q I'M SORRY?
A I ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED.
Q YOU ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q WELL, YOU TOLD US BEFORE THAT YOU HAD A CONCERN
THAT THE GLOVE AND THE ENVELOPE AND THE HAT MIGHT BE MOVED
WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY, DIDN'T YOU?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.
AFTER YOU SAW MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BEING REMOVED,
DID YOU MAKE INQUIRY OF DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THE GLOVE WAS IN THE SAME PLACE AS IT WAS BEFORE MR.
GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS REMOVED?
A NO.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE -- FROM THE MOMENT YOU
ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO THE MOMENT THAT YOU
HAVE SEEN THESE PICTURES IN THE COURTROOM, DO YOU EVER
RECALL SEEING THE GLOVE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IS
DEPICTED IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A AT THE SCENE? THE GLOVE AT THE SCENE?
Q THE GLOVE AT THE SCENE.
A I REMEMBER THE GLOVE BEING IN THE POSITION THAT
IT IS WITH THE IDENTIFICATION CARD NEXT TO IT.
Q THE 102 PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES.
Q YOU NEVER SAW THE GLOVE IN ANY DIFFERENT
POSITION PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS COLLECTED?
A I DON'T RECALL IT BEING IN A DIFFERENT
POSITION, NO.
Q YOU NEVER SAW THAT GLOVE ON TOP OF THE TILES?
A ON THE WALKWAY?
Q YEAH.
A NO.
Q YOU NEVER SAW THAT GLOVE ON OR NEAR THE
BLANKET?
A I DON'T RECALL, NO.
MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A
VIDEO, MR. FUNG.
Q DO YOU RECALL -- WHILE WE ARE SETTING THIS UP,
DO YOU RECALL THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME
SCENE THAT MORNING AT BUNDY?
A I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS IN THE MORNING OR IN
THE AFTERNOON, BUT HE DID MAKE A BRIEF STOP OVER.
Q AND WHEN HE STOPPED BY, HE WALKED UP THE STAIRS
AND HAD A BRIEF TALK WITH YOU AT SOME POINT?
A I -- HE MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL.
Q AND YOU RECALL THAT CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST
JOHNSON AT SOME POINT WALKED UP THAT STAIRWELL AT BUNDY?
A AT SOME POINT HE DID, YES.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL THAT THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN
WALKED UP THERE BEFORE THE GLOVES AND THE KNIT HAT WERE
COLLECTED?
A I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER.
Q DO YOU RECALL?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WAIT A MINUTE. I OBJECT
BECAUSE IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, GLOVES.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SCHECK: GLOVE, GLOVE, THE BUNDY GLOVE. MY
ERROR.
MR. GOLDBERG: THE REPORTER -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SCHECK: THE BUNDY GLOVE.
DO YOU REMEMBER PUTTING DOWN EVIDENCE CARDS
NEAR THE GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE PRIOR TO THEIR
COLLECTION?
A YES.
Q PRIOR TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN?
A PRIOR?
Q YES.
A YES.
Q YOU DID THAT?
A YES.
MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME VIDEO.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD SEE THIS
FIRST. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO PLAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG IS THIS SEGMENT?
MR. SCHECK: VERY SHORT.
(THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYED WAS FOR
COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: ACTUALLY THREE SEGMENTS.
(THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYED WAS FOR
COUNSEL.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE NEED TO
APPROACH.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, PLEASE, THAT REACTION IS NOT
NECESSARY.
ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE
JURY IS CONCERNED, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS FOR THE
AFTERNOON SESSION AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY
DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU.
DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO
THE CASE.
AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND
IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 A.M.
MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED
TO RETURN TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 A.M.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL HAVE MOTIONS ON CALENDAR,
SO AS SOON AS WE CLEAR THE JURY, WE WILL RESUME WITH
EVIDENCE AND MOTIONS.
(AT 4:04 P.M. THE JURY WAS
EXCUSED AND THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN
OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE JURORS HAVE
LEFT THE COURTROOM.
TWO THINGS: MR. SCHECK, THE PRINTOUT -- MR.
HARRIS, THE PRINTOUT DOESN'T QUITE --
MR. HARRIS: YES, I'M GOING TO FIX THAT, YOUR HONOR.
I REALIZED THAT AND I WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DRAG MARKS SO WE
NEED THE FULL FRAME AS WE SPEAK SO I CAN KEEP THIS AS A
SOUVENIR.
ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WHAT IS YOUR
OBJECTION TO THE VIDEO EXHIBIT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE IS ANOTHER VIDEO WHERE A
SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS, THREE OF THEM, HAVE BEEN TAKEN --
PUT IN SOME CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE BY THE DEFENSE RATHER
THAN THE CONTINUOUS VIEWING OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRIME
SCENE, SO WE OBJECT ON THOSE GROUNDS.
ALSO, I DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN ONE OF THE
SHOTS IN THERE FROM MY REVIEW OF THE VIDEOTAPE PROVIDED BY
THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IS IT POSSIBLE AFTER WE CONCLUDE, IS IT -- IS
MR. HARRIS AVAILABLE TO EXHIBIT THESE MATTERS TO MR.
GOLDBERG?
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I REPRESENT TO YOU THAT
THERE IS TWO SETS OF VIDEOS AND IF MR. GOLDBERG AND THE
PROSECUTION LOOK, THEY WILL SEE TWO VERSIONS OF THIS; ONE
THAT IS AS DEPICTED HERE AND ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS THE
COUNTER ON IT.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. SCHECK: WE CHOSE THE ONE WITHOUT THE COUNTER ON
IT BECAUSE IT GIVES IT A VIEW THAT IS UNOBSTRUCTED BY THE
COUNTER, BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT IF THEY GO BACK AND LOOK AT
THE VIDEO, THEY WILL SEE THIS.
MR. GOLDBERG: THE PROBLEM MAYBE IS I WAS ABOUT TO
SAY IS BECAUSE IT IS EDITED INTO THREE SEPARATE SEGMENTS
THAT ARE ARRANGED IN SOME CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BY THE
DEFENSE, IT MAY BE THAT I'M NOT RECOGNIZING ONE OF THOSE
THREE SEQUENCES, BUT WE OBJECT TO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF IN
THAT I THINK WHAT COUNSEL IS TRYING TO PORTRAY IS SOME SORT
OF HISTORICAL VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND
THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, AND THIS VIDEOTAPE HAS BEEN
APPARENTLY EDITED, IT DOES NOT DO THAT, BECAUSE IT IS
SHOWING THREE DISTINCT THINGS.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WHAT THIS
VIDEO DEPICTS IS -- AND MR. GOLDBERG CAN GO BACK AND LOOK
AND CONSULT WITH THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
BUT I THINK WHAT -- THERE IS AN OBJECT ON THAT SCREEN THAT
WE BELIEVE COULD WELL BE THE GLOVE THAT IS ON THE WALKWAY
NEAR THE BLANKET AND IT IS THERE DURING THESE PERIODS OF
TIME WHEN MR. VANNATTER IS WALKING THROUGH, WHAT I THINK IS
CONSISTENT WITH HIS TESTIMONY AT ABOUT 9:45 WHEN HE IS
GOING TO CONSULT DETECTIVE LANGE FOR THE WARRANT.
WE HAVE OTHER FOOTAGE OF MR. FUNG AND DETECTIVE
VANNATTER CONVERSING. THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT. MR. JOHNSON,
THE WITNESS TESTIFIED, WALKED THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE. I
THINK THIS IS A CLEAR PICTURE OF THAT.
AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE MR. FUNG PLACING DOWN
THE EXHIBITS.
THIS SEEMED TO BE THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO
ZERO IN ON THE ISSUE AND ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS WHAT THAT
OBJECT IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT ONE OF THESE VIDEOS IS
GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT APPEARS TO BE THE GLOVE ON THE
WALKWAY?
LET'S SEE IT AGAIN.
MR. SCHECK: ALL THREE OF THEM DO. WE WANT TO MAKE
AN INQUIRY AS TO WHAT THE OBJECT IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO US
LIKE THE GLOVE AND WE WANT THE WITNESS' BEST RECOLLECTION
AND VIEW AS TO WHAT THAT OBJECT IS.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING HIM THESE.
THE COURT: LET'S SEE IT AGAIN.
IS THIS IN SOME TYPE OF ORDER CHRONOLOGICALLY?
MR. SCHECK: UMM, TO THE BEST WE CAN RECONSTRUCT IT
IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANT POINT, AND WE COULD
MAKE THIS CLEAR TO THE JURY, IS THAT ALL OF THESE SHOTS ARE
TAKEN AT A POINT PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MR. FUNG SETS DOWN
THE CARD, THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN AND THE GLOVE IS
COLLECTED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE A LOOK AGAIN.
(AT 4:10 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE,
WAS PLAYED.)
MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THAT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE
OF THE SCREEN, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I DO.
MR. SCHECK: WE CONTEND THAT IS THE GLOVE. IT GOES
IN AND OUT OF FOCUS.
WE THINK THAT IS CLEARLY IN A POSITION EITHER
ON OR NEAR THE BLANKET INSIDE THE TILES. WE STOPPED IT
THERE.
SO WE WANT TO HAVE MR. FUNG TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT. HE HAS PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS FOOTAGE, BUT PERHAPS HE
DIDN'T NOTICE IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK: CAN WE SHOW THE NEXT ONE?
(AT 4:11 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE,
WAS PLAYED.)
MR. SCHECK: THE NEXT ONE I BELIEVE IS DETECTIVE
VANNATTER WALKING THROUGH, AND I THINK THE SAME OBJECT CAN
BE SEEN NEAR HIS FEET.
FINALLY, WE HAVE MR. FUNG PLACING DOWN THE CARD
AND I THINK IN THAT SHOT YOU CAN SEE THE OBJECT IN THE SAME
POSITION AS WHEN MR. JOHNSON AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WERE
WALKING THROUGH WITH MR. FUNG PUTTING DOWN THE EVIDENCE
CARDS.
THE COURT: SO YOU ARE GOING TO ASK HIM WHAT IS THAT?
MR. SCHECK: THAT'S RIGHT.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. GOLDBERG, ANY FURTHER COMMENT?
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT? I WANT TO
LOOK AT THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE
COULD TAKE THIS UP IN THE MORNING SO THAT I COULD HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS
AND ALSO THE VIDEO?
THE COURT: TAKE IT UP AT 8:30.
MR. GOLDBERG: AT WHEN?
THE COURT: 8:30.
MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE HEARD.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE HEARD ON THIS.
CAN WE SEE IT ONE MORE TIME, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF WE DO THIS:
I HAVE A WHOLE PANOPLY OF MEDIA MOTIONS TO
ADDRESS, SO IF YOU WANT TIME TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS, I'M
SURE YOU HAVE THE SAME VIDEOTAPES, CORRECT?
MS. CLARK: WE HAVE NEVER SEEN --
MR. SCHECK: LET ME MAKE ONE THING CLEAR, YOUR HONOR:
THERE ARE TWO CASSETTES OF VIDEOS THAT I AM
SURE MR. GOLDBERG AND MR. FUNG HAVE LOOKED THROUGH, IT IS
THE SAME TWO CASSETTES, AND I THINK THE COURT HAS A COPY OF
THOSE CASSETTES AS WELL. WE HAVE MADE THOSE AVAILABLE
SINCE THE OPENING STATEMENT.
IF YOU WILL LOOK THROUGH THOSE YOU WILL SEE
THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES.
AND I WILL MAKE ONE FURTHER REQUEST, HOWEVER,
AND I REALIZE IT HASN'T BEEN THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN THE
COURT, BUT I WOULD MAKE A REQUEST THAT THE PROSECUTOR BE
CONSTRAINED NOT TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH MR. FUNG PRIOR
TO HIS RETURN TO THE STAND TOMORROW, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT
THIS IS IMPORTANT IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL AND WE DON'T THINK
THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE DISCUSSING THEIR ARGUMENTS WITH HIM
BEFORE HE ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.
THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW FROM THE
PARTIES DISCUSSING MATTERS WITH THE WITNESSES AND THERE IS
NO BASIS -- LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I MUST -- MAY I DEFER AND
MAKE THIS ONE EXCEPTION? I COME FROM JURISDICTIONS WHERE
IN FACT THIS RULE IS IN PLACE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BUT I
WOULD DEFER TO MR. COCHRAN TO MAYBE ADDRESS THIS QUESTION
SINCE HE KNOWS THESE MATTERS BETTER THAN I.
MS. CLARK: IN THAT CASE I WILL ASK LEAVE OF THE
COURT TO ADDRESS THE COURT AS WELL ON THIS ISSUE.
I'M SORRY, BUT MR. SCHECK HAS COME INTO THIS
COURT AND WHEN THEY DO THAT --
MR. COCHRAN: SHE IS ALREADY TALKING, YOUR HONOR, AND
RATHER THAN HEAR THAT, LET ME TALK TO MR. SCHECK, MAY I
PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: LIKE THE WORLD SERIES WHERE YOU HAVE
DESIGNATED HITTER RULES ALTERNATELY.
MR. SCHECK: LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IN THIS REGARD
IS THAT WE WERE UNFORTUNATELY CUT OFF BY THE OBJECTIONS
BEFORE WE COULD FINISH THIS IMPEACHMENT, AT THE BREAK, AND
ALL WE WANT IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME POSITION THAT WE WERE
JUST PRIOR TO THE BREAK WHEN THE WITNESS WAS BEING
CONFRONTED WITH THE VIDEO.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT WE HAD
RULES IN THIS COURT THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO SEE THE
EXHIBITS BEFOREHAND AND PARTICULARLY WITH SOMETHING LIKE
VIDEO. I THINK THIS HAPPENED AT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OF.
THE COURT: WELL, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH
THAT.
HE HAS ASKED THAT I MAKE AN ORDER THAT YOU NOT
DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH MR. FUNG BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW
MORNING WHEN HE IS SHOWN THE VIDEO MATTERS BEFORE THE JURY.
WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON THAT?
MR. GOLDBERG: MY COMMENT IS THAT THE LAW AND
PRACTICE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED
TO TALK TO OUR WITNESSES. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO YOUR
WITNESSES AT BREAKS. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO THEM OVER
LUNCH, BEFORE TRIAL, AFTER TRIAL AND SO ON.
WE KNOW THAT IS THE RULE, SO WHY WOULD WE MAKE
AN EXCEPTION -- CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR THIS WITNESS
THAT WE DIDN'T CARVE OUT FOR ANYONE ELSE, THAT WE DIDN'T
CARVE OUT FOR ROSA LOPEZ OR ANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT
TESTIFIED OVER A NUMBER OF DAYS AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO THE PARTIES, TO THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING EITHER
SIDE, OVER THOSE BREAKS?
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO IMPOSE SOME DIFFERENT
RULE WITH MR. FUNG THAN IS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED IN THIS
STATE IN THIS COURT AND IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHECK, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY STATUTORY
AUTHORITY IN THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT GIVES ME THE POWER TO
DO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
MR. SCHECK: ONE FINAL REQUEST IN THAT REGARD THEN.
I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO YOUR HONOR THAT
THE OBJECTION AT THE END I THINK IS A SIMPLE TACTICAL
MATTER WHICH PREVENTED THE IMPEACHMENT AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, SO I WOULD ASK THE COURTS -- SURE, YOU HAVE
DISCRETION. IF IT IS NOT IN THE EVIDENCE CODE, I'M SURE
YOU HAVE DISCRETION.
THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASSUME THAT I DO.
MR. SCHECK: EXERCISE YOUR DISCRETION.
THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME THAT I DO. I DECLINE.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
THEN COUNSEL -- BUT THIS PICTURE SPEAKS PRETTY
POWERFULLY FOR ITSELF.
MR. SCHECK: JUST FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION, I HAVE
EXAMINED ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS VERY CAREFULLY AND THERE ARE
SOME OTHERS THAT I WILL CALL TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THAT
WE HAVE CONSIDERED IN THIS REGARD AND THAT IS THAT THERE
IS ANOTHER SHOT THAT I'M SURE THE PROSECUTORS HAVE SEEN
THAT CONTAINS SOME LEAVES, ALL RIGHT, IN THE AREA WHERE THE
PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.
AND IN OUR JUDGMENT THOSE LEAVES CANNOT ACCOUNT
FOR WHAT WE SEE ON THAT SCREEN, AND SO IF THEY ARE GOING TO
MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THEY THINK THIS IS MISLEADING
BECAUSE THERE IS ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE THERE IS LEAVES
IN THAT AREA, I DON'T THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
GLOVE, SO MAYBE TO SAVE SOME TIME I WILL PROFFER THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE COURT, YOU CAN EXAMINE IT AND EXAMINE
THE VIDEO AND MAYBE WE CAN MOVE ON QUICKLY TOMORROW WITH
THE IMPEACHMENT.
THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE IT UP TOMORROW MORNING. I
WILL GIVE THE PROSECUTION TIME TO SEARCH THEIR VIDEOTAPES
AND LOOK AT THIS THING.
I WILL ASK MR. HARRIS AND MISS FITZPATRICK TO
STICK AROUND SO THAT WE CAN ALL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN,
BUT I NEED TO DEAL WITH THE MOTIONS THAT I HAD SCHEDULED
FOR FOUR O'CLOCK.
MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, DO YOU NEED A COUPLE
MINUTES OR CAN YOU PROCEED?
REPORTER OLSON: I'M FINE.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, ON THIS
MATTER?
THE COURT: ON WHAT?
MR. COCHRAN: ON OUR POSITION.
THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE MR. HODGMAN HERE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU ARE GOING TO
CONFER WITH A FEW FOLKS AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER
UP.
MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE JUST A
COUPLE MINUTES.
THE COURT: MS. SAGER, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS
DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH SOME OF THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES
REPRESENTATIVES AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER UP IN
CHAMBERS.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE --
THE COURT: AS SOON AS WE CLEAR THE COURTROOM, MISS
FITZPATRICK IS HERE AND MR. HARRIS IS HERE AND I WILL ALLOW
YOU TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(AT 4:22 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY,
APRIL 6, 1995, 8:30 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS.
) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995
VOLUME 121
PAGES 21857 THROUGH 22064, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 21822 THROUGH 21856, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 121 PAGES 21857 - 22064
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
WEDNESDAY APRIL 5, 1995 A.M. 21857 121
P.M. 21949 121
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUNG, DENNIS 121
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 21859BS
(RESUMED) 21951BS
-----------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUNG, DENNIS 121
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 21859BS
(RESUMED) 21951BS
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
55-A - PHOTOGRPAH OF 21982 121
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THE CRIME SCENE POINTING
TO A GLOVE WITH THE BACK OF VICTIM NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON AND THE INITIALS "D.F."
55-B - PHOTOGRPAH OF 21982 121
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THE CRIME SCENE POINTING
TO A GLOVE WITH THE BACK OF VICTIM NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON AND THE INITIALS "D.F." AND "B.E."
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1071 - BLACK BINDER 21861 121
(LAPD MANUAL)
1072 - DOCUMENT 21924 121
ENTITLED "SURVERY'S DRAWING OF THE
ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE"
1073 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21953 121
THE NO. 10 ON A WHITE SHEET OF PAPER ON THE
GROUND AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM
1074 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21967 121
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO AN OBJECT WITH
THE BODY OF VICTIM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON
1075 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22047 121
SIDE-BY-SIDE VIEWS OF THE GROUND AT THE
CRIME SCENE
??