PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 10, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1996
8:50 AM

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.

MR. KELLY: Morning.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. BAKER: I have a couple more questions just because I had a whole
night to think of it.

THE COURT: I knew I shouldn't have let you go home.

MR. KELLY: Based on -- on that, I object to any more questions by Mr.
Baker.

THE CLERK: You're still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Phillip Vannatter.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Vannatter, good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Now, did you meet with Mr. Kelly last night?

A. For about five minutes, yes.

Q. In terms of the June 28, 1994 search warrant that you signed the
affidavit for, that was to obtain permission to search Mr. Simpson's
house to get a knife, clothes, shoes, and any murder weapon that you
could find, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the people that carried out that search warrant,
one of them was David Martin, correct?

A. Detective Dave Martin, yes.

Q. And it's your understanding that he searched in the area behind the
vanity mirrors, where there's a medicine chest in Mr. Simpson's -- in
Mr. Simpson's house, because it was a very thorough search, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, hearsay also, unless he
was there and made the observations, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained unless it's a percipient observation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified yesterday that this was a very
thorough search of Mr. Simpson's house; do you recall that?

A. I believe it was.

Q. And I take it that you came to that conclusion, because you talked
to the individuals that did that, and came to your own independent
assessment before you tell this jury, under penalty of perjury, that
that was a very thorough search, true?

A. I believe it was a very thorough search.

Q. To include a very thorough search in looking for the item, namely a
knife that had been reported that Mr. Simpson bought downtown while
doing a film?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. Already injecting it in his
question, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: I'll lay the foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had heard subsequent to the arrest of Mr.
Simpson that he had purchased, sometime previously downtown while
filming, a single-edged knife, correct?

MR. KELLY: Same objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And part of the -- part of the search warrant of
June 28 was to in fact see if that knife was in his house, correct?

A. It was to search for it, yes.

Q. And when you had Detective Dave Martin -- and by the way, Detective
Fuhrman was in on that search, too, wasn't he?

A. He was there, yes.

Q. Were you there?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your testimony, sir, that in the vanity upstairs where
the medicine chest is or behind the vanity, that David Martin searched
there and found no knife?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay unless he's a percipient
witness.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: Also irrelevant, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you present at the hearing on 9/22/94 for the
criminal case when David Martin testified?

MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to get into what's in that hearing.

MR. KELLY: I would object, scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's your testimony that certainly, to do a thorough
search, you'd have to look in medicine chests, isn't that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think we went over this yesterday.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, one other thing, Otis Marlow is a pal of yours?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. A pal of mine?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yeah, he's a friend of yours?

A. Yeah, he's a friend, and a man that I worked with for a number of
years.

Q. And Otis Marlow was the fellow that you sent out into the streets
between Bundy and Rockingham and into the sewers to see if there could
be found any bloody clothes, any murder weapon, any shoes, true?

A. There were a number of detectives that did that.

Q. How many?

A. I can't tell you exactly. It was -- it was an organized search
between the two locations.

Q. And how long did it take to search between the two locations?

A. I believe it took an entire day.

Q. And there were -- in addition to a number of detectives, there were
a number of other people, including Boy Scouts, were there not?

THE COURT: Number -- not Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And they searched the shrubs, trash, into the
sewers, all of that, to find any bloody clothes, shoes, murder weapon,
correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, based on hearsay unless these were
his own observations.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's what I was told, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And absolutely nothing was found, isn't that true?

A. Nothing to my knowledge.

Q. And you also directed people to take apart plumbing in Mr.
Simpson's home to see if blood could be found, isn't that true?

A. I didn't direct that, no.

Q. You were aware that it had occurred, and not one thing was found,
isn't that true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I was aware that it occurred.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you were aware that, for example, they took
apart the plumbing relative to the washing machine to see if there was
any blood in the -- whatever those pipes are called, the drain pipes,
right?

A. I don't know that I was aware of that. I was aware that they
checked the plumbing in the bathroom.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Mr. Vannatter, when you left Bundy the first time at approximately
5 a.m. that morning on June 13 to go to Rockingham, how long did you
expect to be gone for?

A. Probably 10 or 15 minutes.

Q. Okay.

And upon your return to Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes, would that be when
you called a criminalist?

MR. BAKER: Calls for speculation on the part of this witness, Your
Honor, and leading.

THE COURT: Leading. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What did you intend to do, upon your arrival back at
Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes?

A. I would have notified all the support people to respond to the
location.

Q. Would that have included the criminalist?

A. That would have included the criminalist.

Q. Now, you indicated upon your observation of what appeared to you to
be a blood drop on the Bronco at Rockingham, you called the
criminalist at that time; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the purpose of calling the criminalist?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the purpose of calling the criminalist to Rockingham at
that time?

A. I wanted to personally be there when he tested that. I believed it
was blood, and I wanted to be there when -- personally when he tested
it.

Q. And was there anything you intended for him to do after he tested
that blood also?

MR. BAKER: Objection, calls to speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Absolutely. I would have had him -- if it would have turned out not
to be blood, or there were no other evidence, I would have then
accompanied him to Bundy.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay.

And you indicated in that search warrant affidavit that day, that that
appeared to be human blood on the Ford Bronco door handle, correct,
and that in fact it was tested and turned out to be human blood?

A. It turned out.

Q. Do you recall that?

A. It was tested positive for blood, yes.

Q. Okay.

So you actually were there at Rockingham when Criminalist Fung
conducted the phenolphthalein test on the Bronco door spot?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Assumes facts not in evidence.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And were the results of that phenolphthalein test
conveyed to you at Rockingham, before you left for the search warrant?

A. Yes.

Q. And was the result of that test that it was presumptively blood on
the door handle?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And would it be fair to say, that based on that
presumptive test, the location of the blood, you concluded it was
human blood?

A. I believed it was, yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, another thing --

A. I believed it was, yes.

Q. When you were in Rockingham that first morning, you indicated that
Detective Fuhrman was out of your sight of vision for a period of
time?

A. Yeah, I didn't watch him the whole time, yes.

Q. Were there times you weren't able to see Detective Lange also?

A. Certainly.

Q. And Detective Phillips?

A. Certainly.

Q. Were there times that you were out of their sight also?

A. I'm sure I was, yes.

Q. Now, going to the south side of the Rockingham residence, back when
you first observed the glove with Detective Fuhrman, you indicated
that there was no evidence of anyone coming over the fence, correct?

A. I didn't see any evidence of it.

Q. Okay.

You didn't see any torn clothing on the fence?

A. No.

Q. Didn't see any blood drops near you, immediately around the glove,
did you?

A. No. No.

Q. I believe you also indicated you never went closer than four feet
west of where the glove was; is that correct also?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. That means you stopped four feet short of that glove?

A. Yes.

Q. And I believe you indicated the foliage along the fence appeared to
be heavy?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you know, back along that fence, here in the vicinity where
the glove was found, whether or not there was an area large enough for
someone to have come through the foliage and over the fence?

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor, there's no foundation for that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you observe any area in the foliage, around the
glove, large enough where someone could have come through the foliage
and over the fence?

A. I wasn't looking for anything like that. I -- I don't know.

Q. Okay.

So you didn't observe anything one way or the other?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

As you recall, was the glove found just short of that air conditioner
in the wall back there?

A. Yeah, I believe it was west -- slightly west of the air
conditioner.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can we see the video.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to any video.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: Can I be heard on that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No.

MR. BAKER: We don't know what video this is.

THE COURT: Which video is this?

MR. KELLY: It's June of --

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. KELLY: It's a --

THE COURT: Turn it off for a minute. What --

MR. KELLY: It's a video taken of the south walkway, by the son of Mr.
Simpson's personal secretary on June 18, 1994.

MR. BAKER: Can we approach.

MR. PETROCELLI: They produced it.

THE COURT: Okay, approach the bench.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.)

THE COURT: Whose video is it?

MR. KELLY: It was made by Gary Randa, who is the son of Kathy Randa,
Mr. Simpson's personal secretary/administrative assistant for 20-odd
years, Your Honor. It was made in June, 1994, shortly after Mr.
Simpson's arrest, depicting the south walkway, the fence, the bushes
and conditions.

THE COURT: How did you get it?

MR. KELLY: Pursuant to --

MR. PETROCELLI: Court order. Your court order.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: And here's --

THE COURT: Is that who he is --

MR. PETROCELLI: Gary Randa's under his control.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: Wait. Wait a minute. I want to make a record.

This witness has never seen this tape, unless they played it to him.
This witness has testified as to his percipient knowledge. They can
not now put on a tape as affirmative evidence, without any foundation
that it was played on June 28.

I'd like the rules of evidence in this courtroom to be equal to both
sides. I'd like it to start now.

And I think this is ridiculous, that you can allow them to play a
videotape without any -- without one bit of foundation, and put it on
to a witness who says I didn't -- I didn't see this. This videotape
was done on June 28, and for you to put this on -- on this witness
without the witness's -- after they've rested their case is absolutely
ridiculous.

You wouldn't even let me have a jury view. Now you're saying they can
put on a tape when their case has rested, and a guy that says I didn't
see it, I didn't even look.

I think it's ridiculous. I think there ought to be some -- some --

MR. PETROCELLI: Keep your voice down.

Let me explain.

THE COURT: How are you going to connect up the videotape with this
witness?

MR. PETROCELLI: If you go back and look in the record, through his
leading questions yesterday, he got this witness to say that he didn't
see anything on a heavy wooded area down the south side, that he
observed no evidence that anybody could -- could come over the fence,
and that he looked all the way down as far as he can look. He went
through this in some detail yesterday on his examination.

This is the area right where the glove was found.

Okay, Your Honor.

And we're going to ask him whether he saw or didn't see that opening
in the fence. Mr. Baker elicited testimony suggesting that he saw the
area and did not see any evidence, any opening, any holes in the
foliage, and he opened this matter wide open. We're allowed to
cross-examine this witness on this point.

MR. BAKER: The witness just testified --

MR. PETROCELLI: He can't have it both ways.

And for the record, I want to object to these outrageous comments
about the rules of evidence not applying evenhandedly. This is out of
line.

MR. BAKER: I don't care what you like, I'll tell you that, number one.

Number two, this witness has just testified that he didn't look. Now
they're going to say look at this after I've got change of
circumstances. It is change of circumstances --

MR. PETROCELLI: A week or two --

MR. BAKER: Let me finish.

MR. PETROCELLI: Keep your voice down, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: On June 12 -- these murders occurred on June 13. The
morning of June 13 is when -- the evening of June 12, morning of June
13 is when somebody would have to have gone over that fence. This
video was taken on 6/28/94. They opposed, and you upheld the fact that
we can't have a jury view because of change of circumstances. They had
detectives traipsing all through there between the 12th and the 28th.

And I object to it. I think there's no foundation for it.

You can stop a hummingbird's wings in flight --

MR. PETROCELLI: This is right where the glove was found, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: It's a photo taken to accentuate exactly what he wants to
show, and with a Nikkon, I can stop a hummingbird's wings flapping, I
can't see them.

MR. PETROCELLI: You can see the top -- top of the fence posts are bent
down. I asked Mr. Simpson at his -- his examination. He denied all
this. He specifically went in with this witness, he asked four, five,
six questions, you can go back and ask, yesterday he led him to say
there's no evidence that anybody could come over that fence. He said
it was heavy, thick, wooden, he used all these words to suggest that
-- that Mr. Vannatter was able to definitively demonstrate that there
was no break.

THE COURT: When was this photograph made?

MR. PETROCELLI: This photograph was taken -- and it's even better on
the video. This was taken when we viewed the property about, when was
it, in September or August of this year.

But the video is like two weeks after the murders. It's even better
than this.

THE COURT: Okay.

Overruled.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury.)

MR. BAKER: Judge, I take it we're not going to have any audio on this
tape.

MR. PETROCELLI: There's no audio.

MR. FOSTER: There is audio.

MR. PETROCELLI: Turn the audio down.

MR. KELLY: This is Exhibit 821, by the way, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 8 what?

MR. KELLY: 821.

(The instrument herein described as a videotape of side of fence was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 821.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Detective, do you recognize this as this south
walkway?

A. Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Is that the best quality the tape is?

MR. PETROCELLI: Steve?

MR. FOSTER: Yes.

MR. KELLY: That's the way it was produced, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Phil's focusing it, Your Honor.

(Tape is played.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Detective Vannatter, did you observe, first of all,
the air conditioner on the left-hand side of the screen there?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your testimony that the glove was a couple of feet, or
just short west of that air conditioner when you observed it?

A. It was slightly west. I don't know exactly how far because I never
went all the way up there.

Q. Okay.

Now, that night when you stopped four, five feet short of the glove,
did you observe this opening in the foliage right next to the air
conditioner that night?

MR. BAKER: I object, that's an opening, I object to him leading this
witness.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you observe that area above the fence depicted
in the video that night when you were there, Detective?

MR. BAKER: And the point is to lead.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I did not.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And with regard to these --

MR. BAKER: Then I move -- in view of that answer, I move that the
testimony of this witness, any further testimony relative to this be
stricken and that the tape -- the jury be admonished not to take into
account anything they just saw on the tape.

THE COURT: The jury is admonished that pending any further
foundational evidence that must be produced, you will hold your
judgment of this photograph in abeyance. I'll give you instructions if
and when we get, or don't get foundation.

MR. BAKER: Can we take that off the monitor?

THE COURT: Yes, we may.

MR. PETROCELLI: We will have foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Just a couple other things.

Mr. Vannatter, when you arrived at Parker Center early afternoon on
the 13th with Mr. Simpson, you had testified that he road down with
you in your car; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody else arrive there for Mr. Simpson, shortly after you
arrived down there at Parker Center?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did that happen to be?

A. His two attorneys, Howard Weitzman and Skip Taft.

Q. And what, if anything, did Mr. Simpson do with his two attorneys,
Howard Weitzman and Skip Taft, after their arrival down there at
Parker Center?

A. They had a closed-door meeting, out of our presence, for 20 to 30
minutes.

Q. Okay.

Just the three of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you provide them a room?

A. Yes.

Q. The door was closed?

A. Yes.

Q. You weren't privy to that discussion, were you?

A. No.

Q. That was prior to your interview of Mr. Simpson that day?

A. That's correct.

Q. Last thing. Your arrival at Rockingham at about 5:15 the night of
June 13, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Baker regarding
that?

A. Yes.

Q. And what, if anything, did you have Mr. Simpson's specimen of blood
in at that time, upon your arrival at Rockingham?

A. In an analyzed evidence envelope.

Q. Was that a gray evidence envelope?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Okay.

Where in the car was it upon your arrival there?

A. The front seat beside me.

Q. And what did you do with that envelope when you exited the car?

A. I hand carried it to Dennis Fung.

Q. Was there -- what -- would it be fair to say there was a large
number of media there when you arrived at Rockingham?

A. There was a large number, yes.

Q. People with still cameras?

A. Yes.

Q. Video equipment?

A. Yes.

Q. Number of other uniform police officers there?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Can I play one other video.

MR. FOSTER: 228.

MR. KELLY: 228 would be the same time frame of Mr. Vannatter's arrival
at Rockingham.

(Tape played from 17:16:29 to 17:18:52.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) That's the envelope in your right hand, Detective?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

That's you exiting -- entering the Rockingham foyer at that time?

A. I really can't see from here.

Q. Okay.

Can you step up and -- by the way, was that Mr. Simpson's black grip
you were returning?

A. Yes, it was.

MR. KELLY: And if you could stop that for a second.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You able to see Dennis Fung in there at that time?

MR. KELLY: If you back up a second, Steve.

A. Yes, I see Mr. Fung.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that where you handed him the evidence envelope?

A. Yes, sir.

(Video tape reference is 17:18:59.)

Q. You can have a seat.

One other thing, Mr. Vannatter, going back to Rockingham early that
morning, you indicated after you viewed the glove that -- that after
-- Detective Fuhrman had gone back to Bundy to make an observation of
the first glove there; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And did you make any observations in the driveway area of
Rockingham, after he had left the scene?

A. I did.

Q. What was that?

A. I discovered a number of blood drops leading from the rear of the
Bronco to the front door of the residence.

Q. Okay.

And upon Mr. Fung's arrival there, the criminalist, did you point
those blood drops out?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is all beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Let me show you -- I'll show you next in order.

THE CLERK: 2251.

(The instrument herein described as an analyzed evidence envelope was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2251.)

MR. BAKER: 2251.

Q. Mr. Vannatter, that is an analyzed evidence envelope like the one
that you say you got from your desk and put into -- put the vial that
you got from Thano Peratis in, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, beyond the scope.

MR. BAKER: He went into the blood vial on the tape.

MR. KELLY: Just asked an observation on the video that Mr. Baker had
played portions of yesterday, Your Honor. I didn't go into the content
or the writings.

THE COURT: You did point out the envelope.

Overruled.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's like the one that you say that you had gotten
from your desk in -- or from -- or handed to Thano Peratis and had him
sign it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

A. Yes.

Q. And the instructions on that analyzed evidence envelope are of --
that that is supposed to be sealed, right, as soon as the blood vial
is placed in it?

MR. BAKER: Can I have my picture back.

(Mr. Petrocelli hands photo to Mr. Baker.)

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) See where it says under the officer requesting
withdrawal?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

It's supposed to be sealed, is it not?

A. It says when the affidavit is completed, sign below as a witnessing
officer and seal the envelope, yes.

Q. And was, in fact, the envelope with the -- strike that.

I take it that you followed these instructions, and once there was an
affidavit of the person withdrawing blood, you sealed that envelope,
right? Very important, isn't it?

A. No, I didn't seal the envelope and the reason I didn't was Mr. Fung
was going to book the evidence, and he needed to see what he was going
to book. I couldn't seal it and ask him to book it without seeing what
was in it.

Q. You testified in this courtroom last month that you in fact sealed
the envelope, did you, sir?

A. No, sir. No, sir. I never sealed this envelope. The other envelopes
I got were sealed.

Q. So let me see if I've got this straight.

Play the video.

(Videotape played at 171659.)

MR. P. BAKER: 228. Tape played at 171659.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you agree that that envelope in your left hand is
not sealed, correct?

(Referring to videotape.)

A. I don't recall sealing the envelope, and the reason I don't was it
was not -- it could not have been booked at that point.

(Videotape stops playing at 17:19.)

Q. Detective Vannatter, you agree that that envelope you had in your
left hand just shown in the videotape was not sealed, true?

A. I believe it was not sealed, yes.

Q. And so --

MR. BAKER: Put this on the Elmo.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 225 (sic).

MR. BAKER: I think it's 17.

Okay. Sorry.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of the actual
analyzed evidence envelope was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2252)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is a photograph of the envelope that was
actually used, is it not, can you see it?

A. I would guess it is.

Q. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Now, Phil, take it down to the bottom, please.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Thano Peratis signed, under penalty of perjury,
that he drew the blood on 6/13 at 2:30, and apparently executed the
declaration that says 5/19/94. That has to be an error, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. He obviously didn't withdraw the blood a month before?

A. The murder hadn't occurred yet. That's obviously an error.

Q. Now -- Now, Mr. Vannatter, there is a set procedure after blood is
drawn from an individual relative to sealing the envelope, relative to
initialing the envelope, every time the seal is broken, and dating and
time go on the back of the envelope to ensure that there is a chain of
custody, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, beyond the scope, Your Honor, irrelevant what
the procedure is.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The policy on it is you book it as soon as practical. Once it's
booked, then every time it's reopened, it's initialed, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Detective Vannatter, if this is such an important
piece of evidence that you drove an hour and 20 minutes, because chain
of custody was important, you sure wanted to have that envelope sealed
with the blood in it, so that the chain of custody was protected if
you weren't going to take any blood out of that vial, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The rules require you to seal the envelope and you
didn't do it; isn't that correct, sir?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Just a minute.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

THE COURT: This is 225 --

MR. P. BAKER: I think --

THE CLERK: What's up on the screen?

MR. P. BAKER: The blood vial envelope, next in order. Didn't I say
that, Judge?

THE COURT REPORTER: What is the number then?

THE COURT: I don't know. We'll find out in a minute.

THE CLERK: The evidence envelope 2251.

THE COURT: That makes that 52.

THE CLERK: 2252.

THE COURT: Okay.

Read me the question.

THE REPORTER: (Reading:)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The rules

require you to seal the envelope and you

didn't do it; isn't that correct, sir?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I testified I didn't seal the envelope.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And under the instructions, number 4, it was after
the affidavit was completed around 4:30 (sic), long before 5:15,
before you took the vial and it'd been in your automobile, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sign below as witnessing officer and seal the vial in this envelope
using completed sealed evidence labels. None of that complied with it,
true?

A. That's true.

Q. So the envelope with Mr. Simpson's blood in it was in your
possession from 2:30 to 5:16, or 5:19, or whenever it was unsealed
with only you in possession of that vial of Mr. Simpson's reference
blood, correct?

A. That's correct.

It was part of my job, Mr. Baker.

Q. Yeah. And part of your job was to follow the instructions; to A,
book evidence immediately, B, seal the envelope, none of which you
did. That was part of your job too, wasn't it?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, one other thing, when you as a detective on
this particular case went back to the southside of Mr. Simpson's
house, looked at the glove, you were four feet away, what -- from
about me to you, four feet away, you looked at the glove, you looked
down at the shrubbery, and you found absolutely not one bit of
evidence that anyone came over the fence and disturbed any shrubbery
whatsoever, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Lack of foundation given that he was unable to see
down the entire length of the fence, as Mr. Baker pointed out.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I was not really looking to see if anybody came over the fence. I
didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you're a detective of 23 years. You
find a piece of evidence, you've just been to Bundy where there's a
glove underneath a fence within 3 feet of two bodies, and you are
informed by Detective Fuhrman that there is a glove there, and there
is a hedge going over on the right side as you view the glove, there
is no blood trail, there is not one drop of blood around any leaf on
the ground, and you're telling this jury --

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is closing argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had an obligation to look, didn't you?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As a detective, are you telling this jury you didn't
look to see whether or not there was an area or destruction of broken
branches or anything; is that what you're telling me?

A. I'm telling you I didn't observe any evidence of anything coming
over the fence.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, sir. Nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Mr. Vannatter, when you left Parker Center with that evidence
envelope with the blood vial in it, did you drive directly to the
Rockingham residence and hand that to Mr. Fung?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Nothing.

THE COURT: Your're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, under 776 we call Andrea Mazzola.

MR. PETROCELLI: Object to 776.

MR. BAKER: 767.

MR. PETROCELLI: Object to that also.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Wait a minute. Approach the bench a minute.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)

THE COURT: He did what?

MR. PETROCELLI: We object. These witnesses are not hostile witnesses.
They're city employees. They're not aligning with the plaintiffs.
There's no showing that they are hostile. Mr. Vannatter indicated he
came back on his own volition. These people are not hostile.

MR. BLASIER: Well, Your Honor --

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --

THE COURT: I'm going to permit the defense to examine by way of
cross-examination.

MR. PETROCELLI: Then let us lead as well then, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't think so. I think this situation is such that these
witnesses have testified previously adversely to Mr. Simpson. A
certain amount of latitude should be allowed to the defense in
examining these witnesses.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

ANDREA MAZZOLA, called as a witness by Defendants, was sworn and
testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, while Mr. Blasier is getting the material, I'd
like to move into evidence 1797, 2250, 2251 and 2252.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1797.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2250.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2251.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2252.)

THE COURT: Hearing no objection, they're received.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your first and your last names
for the record.

THE WITNESS: Andrea Mazzola, A-n-d-r-e-a M-a-z-z-o-l-a.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Ms. Mazzola, can you please tell the jury your occupation.

A. I'm a criminalist employed with the City of Los Angeles.

Q. And you're with the Scientific Investigation Division of the police
department?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, could you tell us since the verdict in the criminal case
acquitting Mr. Simpson in October of 1995, have you spent any time
working with the plaintiffs' attorneys or other representatives in
this case?

A. I've only had one meeting with the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Q. When was that?

A. This past Saturday.

Q. How much time did you spend with them?

A. An hour and a half.

Q. Who did you spend that time with?

A. Mr. Lambert.

Q. Now, in preparation for your testimony, did you review the work
that you had done on the Simpson criminal case?

A. I looked at some of the paperwork, yes.

Q. Now, as of June 13 of 1994, the time that you went to the various
crime scenes in this case, had you received any training whatsoever in
the collection of evidence for possible DNA testing?

A. I received the training that we get for the collection of
biological fluids at a scene.

Q. Had you received any specific training with respect to DNA testing?

A. With respect?

Q. And particular problems that might relate to biological evidence
with DNA testing?

A. No.

Q. Now, as of that date, June 13 of 1994, how long had you been a
criminalist?

A. Approximately six months.

Q. And prior to the time that you were a criminalist at LAPD, you
didn't have any experience of processing crime scenes; is that
accurate?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at the time that you processed the scenes in this case, how
long had you been -- how long had you been in training, shall I say,
to process crime scenes?

A. In training as --

Q. In learning how to process a crime scene.

A. We were given in-house instruction on how to process crime scenes,
plus as criminalists, once we went out with the more experienced
criminalists during the day calls, and also we volunteered to go out
with them at night and on the weekends.

Q. As of June 13 you were -- you were still a trainee, were you not?

A. I was a Criminalist 1.

Q. You considered yourself a trainee, didn't you?

A. I was a Criminalist 1. There is no designation as trainee.

Q. Do you remember testifying in August of 1994 at a hearing
concerning what procedures were used to collect evidence in this case?

A. I remember testifying in '94, yes.

Q. And you testified at that time that you considered yourself a
trainee; isn't that correct?

A. That, I do not remember.

Q. Referring to testimony of August 23, 1994, page 689, line 20.

Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer?
(Reading:)

Q. And I take it currently,

as of right now, today, this being

August of '94, you are still a trainee

in crime scene collection; is that

correct? A. I would go out with the

Criminalist 3 to a crime scene, so yes,

I guess you would classify me as a crime

scene trainee.

Q. Do you recall giving that testimony?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Would it refresh your memory to look at it?

A. I doubt it. I might have. I don't remember exactly what happened in
'94.

Q. Now, at the time that you went to the crime scenes in this case,
that was only the third crime scene that you had worked on; is that
correct?

A. I think it was about the third, yes.

Q. And at the two crime scenes that you worked on prior to this one,
you weren't the primary person in charge of collecting evidence, were
you?

A. I was not the primary criminalist. That is correct.

Q. So, would it be fair to say that the Simpson crime scene, and
Simpson case in June of '94 was the first scene where you were given
the principal responsibility for actually collecting the evidence from
the ground and various other places?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, in limine order No. 11.

THE COURT: Read that question again.

THE COURT REPORTER: (Reading:)

Q. So, would it be fair to say

that the Simpson crime scene and Simpson

case in June of '94, was the first scene

where you were given the principal

responsibility for actually collecting

the evidence from the ground and various

other places?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. At the other two scenes, I worked as part of a team with the other
criminalists. I collected biological samples from those scenes as well
as the Simpson scene.

Q. (BY MR BLASIER) You collected most of the biological samples in the
Simpson case, did you not?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, in fact, when you got the call -- By the way, what time did
you get called out to a location in the Simpson case?

A. I received a call at home at approximately 5:26 to 5:30, somewhere
in there.

Q. In the morning?

A. In the morning.

Q. And where were you told to go?

A. Rockingham.

Q. Now, at that time, you were -- it was specified that you were going
to be the officer in charge; isn't that correct?

A. That's what was written on the form.

Q. And that's what you were to be, correct?

A. Officer in charge. The fact that I was the primary criminalist on
call, I was the one that received the call.

Q. But what -- Is that all that being the officer in charge means?

A. As being the primary, yes.

Q. It doesn't have anything to do with what your responsibility is at
the crime scene?

A. Well, in this case, after we got to Rockingham and learned more of
what had happened, then the Criminalist 3, Mr. Fung, became in charge.
He -- He became more of the person who made the decisions on what
would happen.

Q. So then being the officer in charge, that does have a certain
meaning beyond just the fact that you're on call, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And now let me show you what's been marked as Civil Exhibit 943.

Do these appear to be your crime-scene notes from the Rockingham
location from June 13,1994?

(The instrument herein described as copy Mazzola crime-scene
investigation checklist was marked for identification as Defendants
Exhibit No. 943.)

A. Yes.

Q. You would agree that document lists you as the officer in charge,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And is it accurate that most of that document is in your
handwriting, that you prepared that?

A. Most of it appears to be in my handwriting, yes.

Q. Incidentally, at that time, were you the least experienced
criminalist at SID in processing crime scenes?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The least experienced as in?

Q. Processing crime scenes?

A. I was hired with other people, we were all Crim 1's.

Q. Was there anybody with less experience than you?

A. I don't know how many calls the other people had gone out on.

Q. Is it accurate that you collected -- at the Bundy crime scene you
collected every biological stain, with the exception of two stains
from -- from bloody shoe prints?

A. That is not correct.

Q. What stains -- Now, the two stains that I'm referring to is stain
Nos.' 55 and 56.

Does that sound familiar to you?

A. From the two bloody shoe prints?

Q. Those were collected by Dennis Fung, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it your testimony that he collected other biological samples
from the Bundy crime scene other than those two?

A. Only one stain -- he collected a little more blood and he collected
maybe one or two stains from the caged area that were on the -- actual
fence.

Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial in this case, with
respect to who collected blood stains at what location?

A. I remember testifying, yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: What page?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Referring to -- I'm sorry, this would be the
August -- August 23 of 1994, the hearing that we talked about a little
while ago, page 735, line 16.

You remember being asked this question and giving this answer -- this
series of answers.

(Reading:)

Q. Would you please look at

your notes and tell me which numbers

those are, and when you say that you say

he collected the actual shoe prints or

he collected alleged drops that were

near the shoe prints. A. He, meaning Dennis Fung,

if I remember correctly, took swatches

of the red stains that were constituting

the footprint itself. Q. Can you tell us which ones

those were, please. A. Property Items 55 and 56. Q. And is that it? A.
Yes. Q. All other blood stains at

the Bundy crime scene were collected by

you? A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that testimony?

A. Not really, no.

Q. You do recall testifying in August?

A. Yes, I do recall testifying in August.

Q. You have any reason to think that your testimony was anything other
than that?

A. No, not if it's there.

Q. Now, with respect to the Rockingham scene, is it accurate to say
that Dennis Fung collected a stain or two on the street, but you
collected every other biological stain at that scene?

A. For the most part, yes.

Q. And for some of those stains you collected, Dennis Fung wasn't even
supervising you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Was there at any time any discussion that perhaps someone with more
experience should be processing these crime scenes?

A. Not that I remember, no.

Q. Now, when you were at the Bundy scene -- what time did you get to
the Bundy scene?

A. May I look at the note?

Q. Sure.

A. We arrived at Bundy approximately quarter after 10.

Q. And what time had you arrived at Rockingham?

A. Approximately 10 minutes after 7.

Q. So you had been at Rockingham for approximately 3 hours before you
went to Bundy, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. When you got to the Bundy scene, did you observe a blanket covering
the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. I do not recall seeing Nicole Simpson when we arrived.

Q. Do you recall seeing a blanket on the ground?

A. Yes, I recall seeing a blanket.

Q. Did you ever examine that blanket for any possible trace evidence?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever examine it for anything?

A. No.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant under in limine order No. 11.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that blanket was left on the ground, after
that crime scene was released, correct?

A. I do not know what the detectives did with the blanket.

Q. You and Dennis Fung never collected it, did you?

A. We never collected it.

Q. Now, at the Bundy scene, is it accurate that you are the one who
collected both the knit cap and the Bundy glove?

A. Correct.

Q. And which one did you collect first?

A. Offhand, I can't remember which was collected first.

MR. BLASIER: Do we have the video?

MR. P. BAKER: This is Civil 918.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, can you turn and look at the video
here. See if this refreshes your recollection.

(Exhibit 918, videotape, played at CTC 135143.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recognize that as you collecting the knit
cap?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are wearing gloves, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now you're collecting the glove, correct?

A. Correct.

MR. BLASIER: You can turn it off.

(Videotape stopped at 17:52:30.)

Q. Now, you would agree that you did not change your gloves between
collecting the knit cap and the glove; is that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Correct.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did not examine your hands between collecting
the knit cap and the glove for any biological material that may have
gotten on your hands from the knit cap, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't examine your gloves for any possible trace evidence
that might have come off the knit cap onto your gloves before you
picked up the glove, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, do you know -- do you have any independent recollection at all
as to when you had changed your gloves prior to the time that you
picked up the knit cap?

MR. LAMBERT: From when? Vague question, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) From the time you got there?

A. That day? I can't begin to tell you how many times I changed my
gloves. I don't remember when I changed them. I know I changed them
many times that day.

Q. Can you tell me prior to the time that you picked up the knit cap,
when you changed your gloves?

A. No, I cannot.

Q. And your reason for not changing your gloves between the knit cap
and the glove was what?

A. They're both in extreme close proximity to each other. When they
are picked up, as you pick up any piece of evidence, if you're going
to use your hands, you pick them up securely within the smallest area
possible, you would not pick up a hat just by grabbing it, you pick it
up in the smallest area possible, touch it as least as possible.

Q. You're saying that you did that because the hat and the glove were
in close proximity to each other?

A. That I did what?

Q. That's why you didn't change your gloves?

A. That was one of the reasons.

Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial, page 23746, line
1, when you were asked with respect to why you didn't change your
gloves. (Reading:)

A. The hat and the glove at

Bundy were touching each other.

Q. Do you remember that testimony?

(Reading:)

They were not in two completely

separate areas. They were in physical

contact with each other.

Q. Remember that testimony?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And that's not accurate, is it?

MR. LAMBERT: That wasn't impeachment, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: I'll withdraw that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was there a time when they were touching each
other, prior to the time that you collected them?

A. At the time that I testified to that, I believed, to the best of my
recollection, that the two items were touching each other.

Q. Had you seen them touching each other prior to the time you
collected them?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Prior to the time that you collected the Bundy glove, had you seen
anyone pick it up and replace it on the ground?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Prior to the time -- Now, you collected the envelope with the
glasses as well, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the time that you collected the envelope with the glasses,
did you see anyone pick it up and replace it on the ground in a
different location?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you Exhibit 1532.

Ms. Mazzola, when you arrived at the Bundy scene at approximately 10,
10:15 on the morning of the 13th, was there a piece of paper, as
depicted in this photograph, on the ground between the bodies of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

A. Right now, I don't remember seeing a piece of paper.

Q. Did -- in your presence, did Detective Lange of -- did you ever see
him examine a piece of paper like that at the scene -- at the Bundy
scene?

A. In my presence, no.

Q. And you never collected that piece of paper, did you?

A. Does not look familiar.

Q. It doesn't show up anywhere in your checklist, either, as anything
that you collected on that day, correct?

A. If it's not on the checklist, we did not pick it up.

Q. You want to verify that it's not there.

(Witness reviews documents in a blue notebook binder.)

Q. That's correct, you did not collect that?

A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. Let me show you People 92 -- I apologize for the picture -- to help
situate the location of that piece of paper.

And your testimony is that you never saw that there, correct?

A. That?

(Indicating to photograph of paper.)

A. I honestly don't remember seeing it.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, let's take a break.

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, one of your responsibilities with
Dennis Fung, at the Bundy scene, was to examine the entire scene for
possible evidence to collect, correct?

A. Usually you have a walk-through at the beginning, yes.

Q. And it's your responsibility, yours and Mr. Fung's, to identify all
evidence that might be -- have some probative value and collect that
evidence, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that involves the careful examination of the scene itself,
doesn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were at the Bundy scene from about 10:00 or 10:15 in the
morning until when?

A. Can I check?

Q. Sure.

(Witness reviews documents in blue notebook binder.)

A. Approximately quarter after 3:00.

Q. All right. So about six -- five hours, a little more than five
hours?

A. Somewhere around there, yes.

Q. You had plenty of time to examine that scene, did you not?

A. We had the walk-through, yes, and we started work.

Q. And when you left that area, you felt you were done and you had
completely processed the scene, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, the so-called Bundy drops, these were drops that where are on
the walkway, going out on the side of Nicole Brown Simpson's
condominium, correct?

A. There were drops on the walkway, yes.

Q. Okay.

(Referring to exhibit No. 67 entitled Blood Drops at Bundy, June 13,
1994.)

MR. BLASIER: You want to take a look at this and orient yourself, if
you could.

Can you see it from there?

MR. P. BAKER: The board is exhibit 67.

MR. BLASIER: 67.

(Exhibit 67 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, one of the things that you do when you
collect evidence is to document the evidence as you collect it,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the notes that you have in front of you -- I forget what number
that is. 923?

MR. P. BAKER: 943.

MR. BLASIER: 943.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do those particular documents have a list of items
that you collected from Bundy, or is that on a different checklist?

A. That was on a different checklist.

Q. Did you bring that other checklist with you?

A. Did I?

My copy, yes.

Q. And why don't you pull that out, because I'm going to ask you some
questions about it.

The numbers on the drops in this chart 112, 13, 14, 15, and 17, those
are photo I.D. numbers, are they not?

A. Correct.

Q. And they were later given different item numbers after they -- at
the time they were brought in to be booked, I suppose, correct?

A. They were assigned property numbers before final booking.

Q. Okay.

Now, could you look at your records and tell me now --

Incidentally, were these numbers assigned in sequence as to -- as you
identified things?

A. That is what you normally try to do, is to keep things sequential,
if at all possible.

Q. Okay.

So 112 would be the first thing that you documented of this series?

(Witness reviews documents in blue notebook binder.)

A. It appears that 112 was the beginning -- the beginning of the
drops.

Q. That represents a drop found up here on the chart, indicating near
-- the closest one to the front gate area?

A. Correct.

Q. Then the next one you did was 113, which was a little further, I
guess, west down the walkway, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Then 114, yet further down. Actually, this was on the way, on the
steps, going down into this depressed area, or maybe this is going up,
I guess, correct? 114?

A. It was back further, yes.

Q. Okay.

And 115 is back by the back gate, correct?

A. That would be further back, yes.

Q. Tell me what you did after you did 115.

Check your notes.

(The witness complies.)

A. It's number photo I.D. 116, indicates the stain that was taken off
the front gate.

Q. So you went from 115, near the back gate, back up to the front gate
and did 116, correct?

A. No.

When the numbers were laid out, if another stain was identified up
near the front, the next photo I.D. number could have been taken up
and given to that stain.

Once you start processing, you're ready to collect; you've done your
measurements; you've done your numbers. The photographer takes his
pictures; you do the sketches. Then you start collecting it, the last
thing do you.

Q. When were those cards put down there? Were they put down there in
sequence?

A. Mr. Fung started laying out the numbers on the walkway, as I
started working at the front end.

Q. Okay.

Now, there was a stain out in the driveway area that got the number
117, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, when did 116 on the front gate -- when was this number
assigned?

A. Probably before Mr. Fung laid out 117 at the back.

Q. All right.

And did you collect these in the same order?

A. Once we started working on the trail blood drops in the back, they
were picked up going back.

Q. So you didn't process -- you didn't collect them in order of the
photo I.D. numbers?

A. You wouldn't go down to 115, stop what you're doing back there,
walk up to the front, collect 116, and then walk all the way to the
back to get 117.

Q. Do you have any recollection at all as to what you did after 115?

A. After I collected 115, I would collect 117.

Q. You have a specific recollection that that's what you did?

A. I would work my way back. That's what I've always done.

Q. My question was, do you have a specific recollection that after
115, you went to 117?

(Brief pause.)

A. At this point, I mean, knowing what I do -- but as you say, an
independent recollection, I can't say that.

Q. And your notes, when you do those, your -- your notes, you do those
sequentially as you process items, as you're supposed to, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your notes, it shows that after 115, you did 116 on the
front gate, correct?

A. That's when it was measured. Just --

Q. Now, you did not notice anything of evidentiary value whatsoever on
the back gate; isn't that correct?

A. To the best of my recollection, I do not recall seeing a back gate.

Q. My question is, you observed nothing of evidentiary value on the
back gate, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. She just said she didn't see.

THE COURT: She said she didn't see a back gate. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How many times did you walk along this pathway
during the five hours that you were there?

A. I can't tell you how many times.

Q. Did you examine any areas that were above the ground for stains,
for blood splatter?

A. Mr. Fung had gone back there and had done the walk-through with the
detectives, and he had identified what needed to be picked up. I
personally did not.

Q. So you didn't do any examination of the scene at all to determine
what should be picked up?

A. Along that back area, no.

Q. And you don't even know if there was a gate there?

MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. At that time, I did not recall seeing a back gate.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Now, incidentally, the proper way -- the correct way, under your
procedures to document evidence such as these drops, is to take
pictures with this -- these cards, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And this is before collection, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And isn't it also one of the requirements that you have a ruler in
here so that you can tell what the size of the stain is?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. Evidence-collection techniques in
limine ruling.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You can ask her if she had one or not.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) None of these pictures has a ruler in it to
establish the size of any of the Bundy drops; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's correct; there was no ruler.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell me how big 112 was.

A. Other than the relationship of the size of the cards, of the drop,
that's the only way to tell.

Q. You never measured the size of any of these drops, did you?

A. No.

Q. You can't tell whether 117 is bigger than 114 or smaller than 112,
can you?

A. No.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I want to ask you some questions about item
number one 1 at the Rockingham scene.

Why don't you pull those notes there, so you can refresh your
recollection.

(Witness reviews documents.)

Q. Tell me what item 11 is from the Rockingham scene.

A. It is a red stain.

Q. Let me put 2137 on the Elmo.

(Defendants' Exhibit 2137 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. And tell us, is that the redish stain that you just testified
about?

A. From that angle and distance, you can't.

Q. Can you see the card?

A. Yes. I can't see the stains from that picture.

Q. Okay.

But you recognize the area from where take stain was collected?

A. I recognize the back area, yes.

Q. And that was on a wire on the back walkway of Mr. Simpson's,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Describe that stain for me.

A. It was more of a very light smear than like a blood drop, more of a
very light --

Q. Redish in color?

A. Reddish-brown, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, next in order, please.

THE CLERK: 2253.

(The instrument herein referred to as document regarding stains and
item numbers was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No.
2253.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you did a presumptive blood test on that
stain, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It came back positive, correct?

A. Correct.

MR. BLASIER: 2253 please.

(Defendants' Exhibit 2253 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. We're talking about item 11, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you collected that stain on June the 13th, 1994, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You did a presumptive test and it came back positive, correct?

A. Preliminary positive, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you put a plus there for positive.

MR. P. BAKER: (Mr. P. Baker complies.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, your testimony here is that it -- that was a
redish stain, correct?

A. A very light redish-brown, very hard to see.

Q. Incidentally, when you collected that, you were all by yourself,
weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Dennis Fung was not there supervising you at all, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you use the same level of care in collecting that stain as you
did all the other ones?

A. Yes.

Q. Who told you about there being a stain in that area?

A. I believe it was Mr. Fung.

Q. Remember testifying on April 26, 1995, that you couldn't remember
whether it was Mr. Fung or a detective?

A. As I said, I believe it was Mr. Fung.

MR. BLASIER: Do we have -- 24501, line 10.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember being asked the question starting
at line 10: "And who was it that brought that to your attention?",
meaning item 11.

"Answer: I can't remember if it was Mr. Fung or a detective."

Remember giving that answer?

A. I -- maybe. I don't quite remember.

Q. Okay.

Now, Detective Fuhrman was one of the detectives at the scene at
Rockingham, was he not?

A. At that time, on that day, I was not introduced to any of the
detectives. I didn't know which one was which.

Q. Okay.

Now, do you remember testifying at page 24502, right below that --

MR. P. BAKER: What line?

MR. BLASIER: Line 2.

MR. PETROCELLI: 20 what?

MR. P. BAKER: 24502.

MR. LAMBERT: Line what?

MR. BLASIER: Line 2.

This is testimony from the criminal trial on April 26, 1995.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember testifying in April?

A. Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. This isn't inconsistent with anything.

MR. PETROCELLI: He has no right just to read it this.

MR. BLASIER: It is --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. BLASIER: It is inconsistent.

THE COURT: What's the inconsistency?

MR. BLASIER: They -- she testified she didn't see a redish stain.

THE COURT: Go ahead. No harm; no foul.

MR. BLASIER: She testified it was a redish stain.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BLASIER: 24502, please.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You remember being asked these questions and
giving these answers?

(Reading:)

"Q. And just like the other

stains that you collected that day, you

swatched the redish area, did you not? "A. I swatched the area that

came up, you know, positive. I had trouble seeing

exactly the red mark it itself. "Q. Ms. Mazzola you saw a

redish discoloration on the wire? "A. It was pointed out to me,

but I still couldn't quite make it out."

Do you recall that now?

A. Possibly, yes.

Q. So as of your testimony in April, you didn't see a redish stain,
correct?

A. I said there --

MR. KELLY: Wait.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You couldn't see a redish area; that's what you
testified to?

A. I had -- I said I had trouble making it out.

Q. So you saw a redish area?

A. As I said, there was very slight discoloration.

That's why you do a presumptive test.

Q. Now, you're aware, are you not, that that stain that you collected
was later tested and found -- did not have blood on it, aren't you?

A. I do not know any of the serology results on that.

Q. And that didn't look like a drop, did it?

A. No.

Q. It didn't look like any of the drops on the driveway, did it?

A. No.

Q. Didn't look like any of the drops at Bundy, did it?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Take that off.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I want to ask you some questions about the
Bundy and the Rockingham drops, in terms of your collection of those
items.

As of June 13 of '94, had you received any training whatsoever, with
respect to the effect of moisture on the degradation of DNA?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you collected the Rockingham drops first,
before you went to Bundy, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the way you do that is, you take the small cotton swatches and
you put distilled water on them. Then you swipe as much of the blood
as you can get off of the ground, right?

A. You don't swipe the blood; you let it sort of blot up, and you keep
turning the swatch.

Q. And you do as many swatches as you can.

You get as much of the blood off as possible, correct?

A. As much of the concentrated blood, yes.

Q. And sometimes you can get four swatches, sometimes five, sometimes
maybe only a couple, correct?

A. It depends on the drop itself.

Q. Now, each of those swatches that you did for the Rockingham drops,
as well as the Bundy drops later that morning, were put into -- while
they were wet, into plastic bags, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the plastic bags that had the red swatches, where were they put
after you put them in the plastic bags?

A. The individual bags were placed in small -- we call them coin
envelopes, small manila envelopes that have the photo I.D. number of
each item on it.

Q. And where were they taken from there?

A. They were put in a paper bag to keep everything together, and put
in the trunk.

Q. They were put in the back of the crime-scene truck?

A. Correct.

Q. I think it's a black truck. I think we may have seen that truck.

A. Actually, it's navy blue, yes.

Q. Dark in color?

A. Dark.

Q. They're dark.

There's a refrigerator in the back of the truck?

A. There's a small refrigerator, yes.

Q. They're for preserving biological samples that are collected.
That's one of the purposes, correct?

A. Well, it's also to hold chemicals that are used out in the field.

Q. One of the reasons it's there is to preserve biological stains,
correct?

A. I was never told that. I -- I don't know.

Q. The swatches from Rockingham and Bundy in the plastic bags, were
put in the back of the crime-scene truck, but not in the refrigerator,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And what temperature was it, let's say, at about noon on the 13th,
approximately?

A. I have no way of knowing.

I don't know.

Q. There was -- you had concern, did you not, about how hot the
crime-scene truck was getting that day, with those swatches in the
back of it, didn't you?

A. I, at that time, never really thought about it.

Q. Did Dennis -- did you or Dennis Fung, at any time, go back to check
to see how hot they were getting in the back of the crime-scene truck?

A. No.

Q. How long were those stains from Rockingham kept in the back of that
crime-scene truck, unrefrigerated, until you took them out?

A. Until we got back to the lab that evening.

Q. And that would be about what time?

A. Oh, let's see.

I think maybe after 6:00.

Q. And -- I'm sorry; were you done?

A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. And the Rockingham drops were collected at approximately what time?

A. Oh, probably 9:00 or so.

Q. So they were kept in the back of the truck about ten hours before
they were taken out, correct?

A. I assume so.

Q. And the Bundy drops were collected at approximately what time, what
regular time?

A. Oh, probably 12:00, probably started collecting them maybe 45
minutes to an hour after the -- after we arrived at Bundy.

Q. So that would be before 11:00?

A. Before 11:00.

Q. And so those items, those swatches in the plastic bags, were kept
in the back of the truck for approximately six hours before they were
taken out, correct?

A. Well, the ones at Bundy were not placed in the truck until we got
ready to move everything back out.

Q. Okay.

What was done with them prior to the time they were put in the truck?

A. They were kept up front in the bags, where we were working outside.

Q. In the sun?

A. I -- I don't know if they were in the sun or the shade.

Q. And then they were put in the truck, and kept there until about
6:00 or after, when you got back to the lab?

A. Right.

Q. Now, I want to ask you questions about the Bronco.

On June 14, you and Dennis Fung processed the Bronco for blood stains,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And where did that occur, and about what time?

A. That occurred at the LAPD print shed, which is near Parker Center,
and if I can check my notes, I believe --

Q. Sure.

A. -- we arrived at the print shed a little after 7:00 that morning.

Q. And is it accurate that --

And how long were you there, approximately?

A. Oh, a little over three hours.

Q. You had plenty of time to examine the Bronco and collect all the
stains, correct?

A. Well, first of all, you do not collect every stain that you see;
you take a representative sample. And we collected what we saw.

Q. So you didn't collect every stain that you saw?

A. If you have several stains right together, you're not going to pick
up every single stain; you're going to take a representative sample of
that group.

Q. My question was, so you did not collect every stain that you saw on
the 14th?

A. We did not collect every stain.

Q. Did you collect as much of a stain -- of the stains that you saw as
possible?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me -- do you recall testifying at page 24208, line 7 --

MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. That's the wrong citation. It has nothing to
do with this point.

MR. P. BAKER: Check 24207.

MR. BLASIER: Yeah, 24207. I'm sorry. Starting at line 7. You guys have
that?

Can we show that, please.

(Page 24207 of the criminal trial transcript displayed on the Elmo
screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember testifying on April 25, 1995 in
the criminal trial, the following questions and answers:

(Reading:) "Q. Now, on June 14, it was

yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect

every single blood stain on the outside

and inside of the Bronco that was

visible to you; isn't that right? "A. Yes, I believe so. "Q. And each
time that you

set out to collect blood stains in this

case, for each stain that you collected,

Ms. Mazzola, weren't you instructed to

collect as much of the stain as you

possibly could collect? "A. Yes."

And going down a little bit: "Q. In fact, you were

supposed to collect the entire visible

stain; isn't that right? "A. I believe so, yes. "Q. And it would be,
and you

were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching

that blood stain until the blood was

completely collected; isn't that

correct? "A. To get as much as

possible, yes." Do you remember that testimony?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did you make any notation, on any document whatsoever that you had
left blood in the Bronco?

A. No.

Q. Incidentally, did you observe any blood stains on the bottom seal
area, on the outside of the Bronco door?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, "which was observed."

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LAMBERT: It's irrelevant; it's observed and not collected.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I do not remember seeing a stain or not.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's look at 24211, line 1.

MR. P. BAKER: 24211?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MR. LAMBERT: Object, Your Honor. It's not inconsistent with what she
just said.

MR. BLASIER: She testified now that she didn't remember one way or the
other.

THE COURT: That's what she says in that transcript.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: It is sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) No stains were pointed out to you on the seal
outside of the Bronco, correct?

A. I can't remember.

Q. Now, the only blood that you observed on the outside of the Bronco
was a speck by the door handle, that was pointed out by Detective
Fuhrman; isn't that correct?

A. As I said, I don't remember which detective pointed it out, but at
that point, I did not know their names.

Q. But a detective --

A. A detective.

Q. -- pointed it out. That's all you observed on the outside of the
Bronco, all the blood?

A. I believe so. I'm not positive. I believe so.

Q. Okay.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about Mr. Simpson's reference
blood vial.

You know what a reference blood sample is, do you not?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. That's blood from the suspect that is then compared to any
biological stains that you might collect, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That's an extremely important piece of evidence, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, as of 5 o'clock on the 13th, you were still at Rockingham,
correct?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And that was during the execution of the search warrant that day,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And -- and you can refer to your notes, if you like. Do you have
your notes of what you collected on the afternoon?

A. Yes.

Q. You collected -- as of 5 o'clock, you had collected 16 items at
Rockingham that afternoon, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after 5 o'clock --

By the way, what time did you leave Rockingham after 5:00

A. Let's see. It doesn't have the time that we left.

It wasn't too much later.

Q. Now, I'm not sure. Did you answer my question, you collected 16
items up to that point?

A. Okay.

Q. And the last item, item 16, was just what, in general?

A. Two airline luggage tickets.

Q. Now, you were with Dennis Fung from 5 o'clock until the two of you
left in the crime-scene truck to go back to the lab; isn't that
correct?

A. We were inside Mr. Simpson's house.

Q. And you were with Dennis Fung during that time period, were you
not?

A. Not by his side the whole time, no.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Not by his side the whole time, no.

Q. Do you remember testifying on August 23 of 1994, at page 762, line
24 --

MR. BLASIER: You got that?

MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.

(Transcript is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. Do you remember being asked this question and giving this answer:
"Q. Were you with Mr. Fung

the entire time after you picked up that

last item at 1700 hours until you

departed for your next designation? "A. I believe I was, yes."

Isn't that what you testified to in August of '94?

A. Apparently, so.

Q. Now, at some time after this testimony in August, and prior to your
testimony in the criminal trial, you became aware that there was an
issue with respect to Mr. Simpson's reference blood being given to
Dennis Fung around that time, correct?

A. I do not recall, no.

Q. At the time of your testimony at the criminal trial in this case,
were you aware that there was an issue with respect to Mr. Simpson's
reference blood and whether it was turned over?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I believe hearing something about that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And is it accurate that at the time you testified
at the criminal trial in April of '95, your testimony was that that
you were not with Mr. Fung; that you had your eyes closed when that
happened when the blood vial was transferred from Vannatter to Fung?

A. I was sitting in the living room with the photographer, with the
detectives, and Mr. Fung. When I left them, they were in the kitchen.

Q. Do you remember testifying at page 23970, line 5, when you were
sitting on the couch at the Rockingham location before you left -- I
guess this would have been after 5:11. You answer uh-huh. "Q. Were
your eyes opened or

closed? "A. I believe they were

closed. "Q. At what point did you

close your eyes? "A. Probably the second I sat

down. "Q. Did you fall asleep? "A. No, I wasn't asleep."

Do you remember giving that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. You have a specific recollection of having your eyes closed in Mr.
Simpson's house, and not seeing Detective Vannatter hand him -- hand
him Mr. Simpson's reference blood.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I do not remember seeing Detective Vannatter give a gray envelope
containing the reference vial to Mr. Fung.

Q. Now, when you left --

MR. BLASIER: Do we have the video?

Q. Now, you said that you were back with a photographer in the living
room on the couch?

A. I might have been in a chair. I don't remember where I was sitting.

Q. Okay.

And the photographer you mean is Mr. Rokahr?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Can we play the video.

MR. P. BAKER: This is Exhibit 939.

MR. BLASIER: 939.

Can you please watch this video.

(The instrument herein referred to as a videotape was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 939.)

(Defendants' Exhibit 939 was played in open court.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That is you and Dennis Fung leaving Rockingham,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And in your right hand, you are carrying a trash bag, correct?

A. Correct.

(Tape concludes playing.)

Q. Did you have any knowledge, at that time, about the content of that
trash bag?

A. It contained the two airline tickets that I believe were in there,
and that was it. I didn't know if anything else was in there.

Q. No one told that you Mr. Simpson's reference blood was in that
trash bag, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you carried it from there to the crime lab?

A. It was unloaded at the crime lab, yes.

Q. What happened to the trash bag after you got to the crime lab?

A. It was placed in the evidence processing room with the rest of the
evidence.

Q. Where in the evidence processing room?

A. On one of the examination tables.

Q. Was the bag still essentially closed?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there anything taken out of the bag that evening?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. So, to your knowledge, whatever was in that bag stayed there that
entire evening while you and Dennis Fung were working on the evidence
samples, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you record anything whatsoever on your crime-scene notes on the
13th, indicating that Mr. Simpson's reference blood had been collected
that afternoon?

A. Not -- I don't believe I did on the 13th.

Q. Now, is it accurate that -- that one of the things that you and
Dennis Fung did when you got back to the crime lab, was to process the
various swatches that you had collected here to dry it?

A. Correct.

Q. And where did you do that?

A. In the evidence processing room.

Q. The same room where the plastic bag was?

A. Correct.

Q. And the process that you go through -- why don't you describe the
steps that you go through to convert a swatch or to dry it.

A. Well, -- several criminalists have their own particular technique.
Mr. Fung uses individual glass test tubes, small test tubes, which are
labeled with the item number and the -- for the control, is given its
item number and the letter C, the control swatches.

One item at a time is opened. The individual swatches are put into the
test tubes with their item number on them. They are placed in racks.
They are put in a cabinet to dry overnight.

Q. Is it accurate to say in the test tubes -- there's no top on the
test tube, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is it accurate to say that all of the stains that you had
collected, both from Rockingham and Bundy, were put into glass vials
in that drying cabinet together, and left there overnight?

A. They were placed in separate areas of the cabinet because -- but
they were placed in the same cabinet.

Q. Now, that night --

By the way, did you process some of those, as well?

A. I believe I started helping, but I ended up labeling the test
tubes.

Q. Okay.

Neither you nor Mr. Fung counted the number of swatches for each stain
that night, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No we did not.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did not sketch the swatches showing their
size, so that you could later look at them to determine whether the
swatches were the same as you had put in the drying tubes, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative and -- argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, we did not measure each swatch.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you didn't take any photographs of any of the
swatches, did you?

A. No, we did not.

Q. It's accurate, is it not, there's no way to tell one swatch from
the other, just by looking at the swatch?

A. That is accurate, yes.

Q. So when you left the crime lab --

What time did you leave that night, the night of the 13th?

A. Oh it's probably close to 8 o'clock.

Q. Okay.

All of the swatches were in open test tubes in the cabinet, in the
same room as the trash bag, presumably with Mr. Simpson's reference
blood, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, the next --

By the way, what's the reason why you dry them?

A. They're dried for final packaging. And after the packaging, they
are processed.

Q. They're dried -- isn't one of the reasons they're dried is, that
preserves them?

A. That, along with the freezing, yes.

Q. All right. And preserves whatever DNA might be in there, correct?

A. DNA and just the stain itself.

Q. Now, the next morning, you and Dennis Fung came into the lab,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at some point that morning, you became aware of Mr. Simpson's
reference blood being there at the lab, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. By about what time was that?

A. I wouldn't know.

Q. And it was then that you created the first record showing -- from
your crime-scene checklist showing Mr. Simpson's reference blood,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And in your crime-scene checklist, you attempt to enter items
sequentially in the order in which they're collected, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you indicated on the back of your checklist that item 17 was a
pair of tennis shoes, correct?

A. Correct.

MR. BLASIER: And let me put this on the Elmo.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 943 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And item 17, the tennis shoes, those were a pair
of shoes that Detective Lange brought in the morning of the 14th,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. They hadn't been turned in to you?

They weren't turned in to you by Detective Lange the night before,
when you were all at Rockingham, were they?

A. No, they were not.

Q. And you agree that by the time you left, from that period of 5
o'clock, until you guys left, Detectives Lange and Vannatter were both
there, weren't they?

A. There were detectives there. I -- I don't know who was there or
not.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Can you back up a little.

(Mr. P. Baker complies.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And then you entered in your notes item 18 as the
reference vial, coming after 17, the tennis shoes that weren't turned
in until the 14th, correct?

A. Correct.

THE COURT REPORTER: Does that have a number? Did you mention it?

MR. BLASIER: That's part of --

MR. P. BAKER: 943.

MR. BLASIER: 943.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, the next morning, you had further processing
to do of the various swatches that had come from Rockingham and Bundy,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The idea of leaving them in there overnight was so they could
completely dry out, so they could be packaged for testing or whatever,
whatever was supposed to be done with them afterwards, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Incidentally, did -- can you look at the screen again.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have the video?

MR. P. BAKER: 228.

MR. BLASIER: 228.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you take a look at this, at that video, tell
us if that's Detective Vannatter walking into Rockingham at about
5:18.

(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 228 displayed on the Elmo screen starting at
17:17:59, ending at 17:19:23.)

Q. Do you see the people in the background there?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see Mr. Rokahr there?

A. I -- if I could see his face. I've only seen this today -- first
today, I mean.

MR. BLASIER: Can we see it better?

(Videotape, Plaintiff's Exhibit 228, was rewound, began playing at
17:17:09, and stopped at 17:18:55.)

Q. Do you recognize the bald-headed gentleman there?

A. Actually, there were two there that day.

Q. Mr. Rokahr had a camera with him with a strap over his shoulder?

A. And he usually wore his hat.

Q. Okay.

(Videotape, Defendants' Exhibit 943, was rewound, began playing at
17:18:58, and stopped at 17:19:02.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There you see the strap over his shoulder?

A. It's a strap, yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Rokahr, if that's Mr. Rokahr, at the time of video, wasn't with
you when your eyes closed in the living room, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, getting back to the morning of the 14th, you and Dennis Fung
retrieved all of the open vials that had the swatches in them from the
drying cabinet, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Incidentally, that cabinet isn't locked, is it?

A. No, it is not.

Q. It's just a cabinet on the wall, isn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. And describe the procedure by which you removed the swatches from
the tubes?

A. Mr. Fung employed just a tapping on the test tube and the swatches
would come out. I used individual disposable glass pipettes to take --
loosen and remove the swatches.

Q. And that was because some of them had dried against the glass of
the tube, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. There was blood on the tube as well as on the swatches?

A. Where they had stuck together, yes.

Q. So when you amudate (sic) the swatches from the vials, you scraped
it with a pipe -- disposable pipette?

A. Not scrape. Just -- you had to touch them and they would.

Q. To get them off of the side of the vial?

A. Correct.

Q. That morning, you still did not count any of the swatches, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. You did not sketch any of the swatches, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. You did not photograph any of the swatches, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, after you -- they were taken out of tubes and you certified
they were dried, they are put in what are called bindles, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And a bindle is like a piece of scratch pad that is folded over, to
contain the swatches from a particular stain, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the bindles that you prepared that morning from the Bundy drops
and the Rockingham drops had your initials on them, according to -- as
required by your procedure, correct?

A. I do not believe there is any procedure about what is put on the
bindles.

Q. The bindles that morning, you put your initials on them, didn't
you?

A. I believed that I had, yes.

Q. And you testified that you had in August of '94 at the hearing that
was held before the trial, correct?

A. I believed that I had my initials on them, yes.

Q. And you found out at some time after that hearing, but before the
criminal trial, that the bindles that were later examined didn't have
your initials on it, didn't you?

A. Correct.

Q. And you then changed your testimony at the criminal trial and said,
maybe you didn't put your initials on it, correct?

A. At the point of the first hearing, I could not remember if I had
put my initials on them or what. I believed that I had at that time.

Q. And that was your best recollection at the time you testified in
August, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Which was less -- we're about months after you had actually done
this, correct?

A. Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

I want the jury brought back in ten.

Thank you.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, if you initialed the bindles that you
processed on the morning of the 14th, and later on those bindles did
not have your initials on them, that would indicate that they weren't
the same bindles, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. You can argue that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you are sure you made sure that those
swatches were all dry at the time that you put them in bindles, on the
morning of the 14th, correct?

A. The ones that I had control over, yes.

Q. And you learned later, that at least one of the bindles, when it
was opened later on showed evidence of a wet transfer on the paper
itself?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of that?

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever look at these bindles after they were
prepared on the morning of the 15th?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So you don't have any independent knowledge that the bindles that
were later examined were the same ones that you guys fixed on the
morning of the 14th?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Prepared?

MR. LAMBERT: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: You can rephrase that, maybe.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You have no personal knowledge that the bindles
that you and Dennis Fung prepared on the morning of the 14th were the
same ones that were later examined by Collin Yamauchi?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, still argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I do not.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, going back to Mr. Simpson's reference blood,
you were ordered at some point to change your paperwork to show that
Mr. Simpson's reference blood should be item 17 rather than 18; isn't
that correct?

A. Mr. Fung told me the tennis shoes had been brought in by Detective
Lange on the 14th, and that they should be given the number later down
the blood vial, what he received the day before.

Q. Is the answer to my question yes, at some point you were directed
to change the number for Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17?

A. Correct.

Q. And that was to eliminate the appearance that the blood had been
kept overnight by Detective Vannatter; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The tennis shoes were brought in after the blood; therefore, they
should have gotten a later number.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Of all of the items that you collected on the 13th
and 14th, was there any other item that you were directed to change
the number on, other than Mr. Simpson's reference blood?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you. That's all I have.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Ms. Mazzola, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Blasier
about your testimony in August, 1994.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. That testimony wasn't during the actual criminal trial, was it?

A. No, it was not.

Q. Was that during some preliminary hearing of some sort?

A. Yes.

Q. And on that occasion, had you had an opportunity to prepare at all
for that testimony?

A. No.

Q. Had you had an opportunity to review your notes?

A. No.

Q. Did you even have your notes with you?

A. No.

Q. So you testified on that occasion without any preparation, and
without any notes; is that right?

A. I did not have any personal notes. I borrowed Mr. Matheson's.

Q. He didn't have all the same things that you have in your notes, did
he?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did he have all the same things in his notes that
you had in your notes?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection.

Foundation. Sustained.

Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you look at Mr. Matheson's notes a little bit
on the stand that day?

A. On the stand, yes.

Q. Were his notes identical to your notes?

A. He was lacking one sketch.

Q. And were you able, during your testimony to completely review his
set of notes to refresh your recollection about the events during the
evidence collection?

A. Not while I was testifying, no.

Q. Did you later discover that you had made some mistakes during your
testimony, because of your lack of preparation?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, in regard to the collection of the evidence
at Rockingham, Mr. Blasier asked some questions about whether Mr. Fung
was supervising you during every swatching of every piece of evidence
that you swatched.

He was present on the premises throughout the time you were working,
wasn't he?

A. Yes, he was present.

Q. And was there also another supervisor from SID present?

A. Towards the end, yes.

Q. That was who?

A. Mr. Steve Johnson.

Q. And what's his position at SID?

A. Assistant laboratory director.

Q. And did he also supervise you, some of the work that you were
doing, or observed?

A. He watched me do one or two towards the end, yes.

Q. And the actual swatching method that you used, using the little
cotton swatches and distilled water and -- and clean tweezers and so
on, is that the same method that you're still using today?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you changed it at all, in any way, since the time you
collected the evidence at Bundy and Rockingham?

A. No.

Q. You're now what level criminalist?

A. Criminalist 2.

Q. And how many crime scenes have you processed since Bundy and
Rockingham?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The technique -- the swatching technique that you
used in that case, were you careful throughout the time that you did
it?

A. Yes.

Q. Same level of care that you've used on crime scenes since then?

A. Yes.

Q. The -- the -- questions were asked of you about whether you could
specifically remember precisely when you changed your gloves when you
were processing the Bundy crime scene.

Is it your recollection that you changed your gloves more than one
time during that crime scene processing?

A. I know it was more than one time but I can't give you a specific
number.

Q. Do you have a custom or habit of changing gloves often during crime
scene processing?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. You asked on direct exam.

A. You change your gloves so often in the lab, especially where I work
in, we are in gloves almost the entire day. To us, changing gloves is
the same as blinking. We do it, we don't think about doing it, we
don't remember how many times we do it.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And it was your -- was that your custom when you
were doing -- at the time you were doing the blood collection in this
case?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in regard to the blood in the Bronco, there was some questions
about the -- the blood collection on June 14.

Who actually did the swatching on that occasion?

A. Mr. Fung.

Q. So you were just assisting Mr. Fung?

A. Yes.

Q. And was Mr. Fung able to literally swatch up all of the blood that
was visible?

A. No, not all of the blood.

Q. So there was some blood left over after the swatching was done?

A. Yes.

Q. You were also asked some questions about this cabinet in the
evidence processing room that is not locked. That room itself, is it
locked or unlocked?

A. It is locked.

Q. And who has access to it?

A. After hours, the criminalist 2's and above, only, have access.

Q. And other than criminalists within the scientific investigation
division, can any other person get inside that evidence processing
room?

A. No.

Q. Can police officers go in there?

A. No.

Q. So the blood was left overnight in this locked room that only --
only SID personnel, criminalists 2 or above would have access to?

A. Correct.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Finally, you were asked some questions about
whether you took any photographs of the swatches during the time that
you were processing them.

Have you ever, on any of your cases, taken photographs of any of the
swatches?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

Q. Would --

THE COURT: Just a minute.

Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever taken a photograph of a swatch
during the evidence collection process?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

A. No, I have never.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would the failure to take a photograph turn the
swatch from one person's blood into another?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

I'll withdraw it.

THE COURT: Okay.

A. No, it would not.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever sketched one of the swatches when
you're in the process of doing this evidence collection?

A. No.

Q. Would the failure to sketch one of the swatches turn the blood from
one person's blood into another?

A. No.

Q. And finally, this question about the bindles, whether the swatches
were dry or not, did you do any test to determine if swatches were dry
before you put them into the bindles?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Mr. Fung doing any tests?

A. No.

Q. You just looked at them, if they looked dry, you put them in the
bindles?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Correct.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Ms. Mazzola, apparently you didn't blink between the knit cap and
the glove, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, is it your testimony that since your work in the criminal
case, you still don't sketch swatches?

A. That is correct.

Q. You still don't take pictures of swatches?

A. That is correct.

Q. You haven't changed your technique at all?

A. Not in the collection, no.

Q. And isn't one of the reasons you take pictures, and draw sketches,
so you can demonstrate later that the swatches haven't been tampered
with?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LAMBERT: Says she didn't do it.

THE COURT: Jury to disregard that question. It's argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let me see if I understand your testimony in
August, two months after you did the work in this case.

You're saying that you've made mistakes because you weren't prepared?

A. I did not refresh my memory at the time, yes.

Q. All right.

Now, you said that you had Greg Matheson's notes, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you looked at them carefully enough to know that they were the
same as yours except one sketch was missing, correct?

A. There were photocopies of the original except the sketch was on the
back of one of the pages and he did not have that.

Q. So you had everything in front of you except one sketch, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you knew that from looking at the notes, that you had
everything there except one sketch, didn't you?

A. As I was being asked the questions and I was trying to answer them,
yes.

Q. What mistakes did you make in August?

A. I didn't have a chance to look at the crime scene photos. Sit down,
go through the notes beforehand to refresh my memory. I was trying to
do that as I was being asked questions by the defense.

MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Denied.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What mistakes did you make in August?

A. Just whether or not -- where Mr. Fung was at certain times, or if
he picked up one thing and I picked up another.

Q. Any other mistakes?

A. I do not know.

Q. So your testimony that you signed -- that you initialed the
bindles, that was correct, wasn't it?

A. No, it is not.

Q. Oh, it's not correct.

When did you learn that you didn't initial the bindles?

A. After I saw photos and I was told by serology that the bindles did
not have my initials or Mr. Fung's.

Q. So they weren't the same bindles, were they, that you initialed
when you made them?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So your reason for thinking that your under-oath
testimony from August was a mistake is because the bindles that were
later examined didn't have your initials on them; is that what you're
saying?

A. That was one of the things.

Q. And now you know for sure that was a mistake, because you saw the
pictures that don't have your initials on them; is that what you're
saying?

A. The bindles that we prepared with the blood swatches did not have
my initials. Initially, I thought that they did. They do not.

Q. And that's all the information you have to conclude that you made a
mistake when you testified under oath in August, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, when you testified in April that Mr. Fung and you collected
all of the blood from the Bronco, had you had plenty of time to
prepare your testimony that time?

A. Yes.

Q. You spent a lot of time with the prosecutors in preparing for your
testimony in April of '95, did you not?

A. Actually not a lot of time, no.

Q. When you testified under oath that you collected the entire visible
stain of every stain that you saw in the Bronco in April, that was the
truth, wasn't it?

A. After you pick up a stain, there's going to be a little bit left
from the water from the swatch. You will not pick up -- it's -- you
will not pick up a stain so it is so clean. You cannot tell if there
was something there before.

Q. Your testimony in April of '95 was the truth, wasn't it?

A. In some parts I was not mistaken; in others I was.

Q. Now -- okay.

So you're saying now that your testimony in April of '95 was a
mistake, the part about you collected everything from the Bronco,
right?

A. We collected representative stains, samples from what we saw.

Q. How did you find out that was a mistake?

A. Perhaps the mistake was saying the word "all."

Q. You thought that was a mistake, because in August of '94 they found
a lot more blood in the Bronco, didn't they?

A. Apparently after they tore the seats out, yes.

Q. That blood wasn't there when you processed that car on the 14th,
was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. We did not tear the seats out of the Bronco. We collected the
stains from what we saw.

Q. The blood -- you did not see any blood consistent with what was
later found in August when you processed that car on the 14th of June
--

MR. LAMBERT: Objection.

Q. -- 1994, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER No further questions.

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute.

MR. BLASIER: Oops, wait a minute.

Let me show you 1420.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.)

(Exhibit 1420 displayed on the Elmo.)

MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in on that better.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, when you were done processing the
Bronco on the 14th, and as you testified in April of '95, that blood
was no longer there, was it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection as to foundation of this photograph, Your
Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's look at what you see here and here was
not there at -- after you finished with the Bronco on the 14th of
June, was it?

A. I do not know.

Q. Did you take any pictures on the 14th?

A. Photos were taken, yes.

Q. Are there any pictures after you were done on the 14th, to your
knowledge, that show the presence of those two stains?

A. Photos were taken before collection, not after.

Q. Oh, so we don't have any pictures after you were done, right?

A. That is correct.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATON BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Ms. Mazzola, do you ever take photographs after you finish doing
the evidence collection?

A. No, never.

Q. You take the photographs before the collection?

A. Before, yes.

Q. And one more time, in regard to this Bronco, when you tried to
swatch up the blood, is it -- is it physically possible to clean it
all up just using the swatch technique or does some always remain
left?

A. Some will remain just from the fact that the swatch is damp with
water. You will collect as much as you can on the swatches because
serology needs a lot of sample. There's going to be a little water
mixed with the blood that is left on the surface.

Q. And this collection that you did on the Bronco, this took place
inside the print shed?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it easy to see inside the print shed?

A. No, it was not.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Let me see if I understand it.

You spent 3 hours on the Bronco, in the print shed, where you couldn't
see it very well; is that your testimony?

A. Flashlights were used by Mr. Fung to go over and identify the
stains that he wanted to collect. Those were the stains that were
numbered, photographed and collected.

Q. No. My question was, is it your testimony, that you just told Mr.
Lambert, that when you processed the Bronco on the 14th for 3 hours,
you couldn't see it very well?

A. We saw it well enough.

Q. Okay.

And you haven't changed a single procedure that you testified to, that
you used in this case, since the Simpson criminal case, have you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: He asked a question about photographs.

THE COURT: You already asked the first time and she said no.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You haven't learned anything from the criminal
case, have you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Who's next?

MR. BLASIER: Under 776 we would call Thano Peratis.

MR. PETROCELLI: 776 is inapplicable.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You may call him as a witness. You may examine him as if he's not in
cross, as if in cross examination. It's not a 776.

MR. BLASIER: 767.

MR. PETROCELLI: We also object to 767.

THE COURT: You may examine as if in cross-examination. You may do the
same.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Somebody call Mr. Peratis.

(Indicating to bailiff.)

THANO PERATIS, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was
duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be --

THE BAILIFF: Please be seated, sir.

THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name for
the record.

THE WITNESS: Thano Peratis, T-h-a-n-o P-e-r-a-t-i-s.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Peratis, you have some heart problems, do you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

If you need to take a break just say the word, okay?

A. (Nodded affirmatively.)

Q. Can you please tell the folks on the jury what your occupation is?

A. Registered nurse.

Q. And by whom are you employed?

A. City of Los Angeles.

Q. Now, where did you work for the city?

A. Parker Center Jail.

Q. Now, you are a nurse in the county jail, correct?

A. In the city jail.

Q. In the city jail.

How long have you been a nurse overall?

A. Overall, since I was in the navy, I would say approximately 40
years.

Q. All right. You've been a nurse for 40 years approximately?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you went through the required nurses school that allowed you to
become a registered nurse?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did very well at your courses to become a registered nurse,
did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. You were a good student?

A. I should hope so.

Q. Okay.

And of your 40 years as a nurse, how much of that has been with the
city jail?

A. I just completed 33 years.

Q. Okay.

So you have 33 years with the city. Seven years presumably prior to
that you had nursing experience at some other location?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, your job in the jail is a very important one, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. You have a fair amount of responsibility with respect to the
inmates that might be ill or other responsibilities that you have;
isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, during the course of your training, as well as your
experiences as a nurse for 40 years, one of your main responsibilities
as a nurse is measuring things, correct, like medications?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's very important that when you measure a medication for an
inmate or whoever, that you do it precisely, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you pride yourself on being very good at that, don't you?

A. In many occasions, yes.

Q. Now, on June 13 of 1994, you were working in the infirmary, were
you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the afternoon, at approximately 1:30, Mr. Simpson was
brought into the jail infirmary, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And do I have the time right, about 1:30?

You can refer to anything you need to.

A. Brought in 2:25.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. 2:25.

Q. 2:25.

Is it accurate that he was brought into the infirmary for you to do
basically two things: One, draw his blood, and two, examine his
finger, examine the cut on his finger?

A. My first understanding was he was brought in for me to draw some
blood. After I drew the blood, I was asked to treat his finger.

Q. You were asked to examine his finger after you did the blood?

A. To treat it.

Q. Now, prior to the time that you drew Mr. Simpson's blood, you
checked his vital signs, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did that consist of?

A. Blood pressure, pulse, temperature.

Q. Was his blood pressure a little high?

A. 130 over 90.

Q. That a little bit high?

A. Slightly.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about -- before I ask you about the blood, I
want to ask you about examining his finger.

Detective Vannatter asked you to examine Mr. Simpson's finger,
correct, or his hand?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I was asked to check a cut on his finger.

Q. Well, were you asked to check his hand?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember testifying in a deposition in this case?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Page and line?

MR. BLASIER: 86, line 25.

MR. P. BAKER: Which is the depo.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Here it is.

MR. BLASIER: Page 86, at the bottom.

MR. PETROCELLI: Through where?

MR. MEDVENE: From where to where, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: I'm checking.

Starting at page -- I'm sorry. Line 24 on 86. And I'll read as far as
you want me to.

Where do you want me to stop?

MR. MEDVENE: I want you to go -- pick up 87, line 16, and over on page
89, question 1 through --

MR. BLASIER: I'll to go 16 and then you can do the rest if you want.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recall in the deposition that we took, I
was present? Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have that bigger so we can see it. I can't see it.

Okay. Let's try.

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Starting at 86.

Do you remember they -- by the way, you were under oath at that time,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And prior to your testimony in that deposition, you had spent some
time with the plaintiffs' attorneys, had you not? Mr. Medvene?

A. Are you talking about the day of the deposition?

Q. Any time before that.

A. I don't --

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I don't believe so. I can't remember.

Q. Okay.

A. Did I spend any time with them though --

Q. Incidentally, one of the side effects of the heart problems that
you've had is memory loss; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall being asked by myself,

(Reading:)

Q. At some point you examined

Mr. Simpson's hand, left hand, do you

recall that? A. Yes. Q. Why did you do that? A. Because I was asked
to. Q. Who asked you to? A. I believe it was

Vannatter.

Q. Then there was an objection.

And at line 14 I ask: (Reading:)

At some point were you asked to

do something with respect to

Mr. Simpson's hand or hands?

Q. And then you answered: (Reading:)

Not hand. I may have heard from

Mr. Vannatter -- I put the dressing -- I

went to put a dressing on Mr. Simpson's

arm and he said I don't need that.

Q. Remember that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Read the next question and answer.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you say that during that deposition?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. PETROCELLI: Next question and answer shown on the screen.

MR. BLASIER: You said to 16.

(Reading:)

Q. Who said that? A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you aware at the time of the deposition being
taken, that it was a significant issue with respect to whether you
examined Mr. Simpson hands?

A. I didn't hear you.

MR. MEDVENE: You didn't read the next line.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, you told him line 16 and he read to line 16.
Now you want to do something on your own examination, save it for
there.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor. He stopped in the middle. It says,
at some point were you asked to do something with respect to Mr.
Simpson's hand or hands, and he said not hand.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, do it on your examination.

MR. MEDVENE: All right.

MR. BLASIER: I thought I read that.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, commence your examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, is it your testimony here today -- well, tell
us what it is you recall today, about what you were asked to do with
respect to Mr. Simpson's hand or finger?

A. I -- After I drew the blood, I heard -- I think it was Mr.
Vannatter, I don't know which one it was, request you take a look at
Mr. Simpson's finger, or words to that effect.

Q. Okay.

A. Would you take a look at his finger.

Q. Okay. All right.

A. Which I did.

Q. And you did that by -- how did you do it?

A. Picking up his hand, looking at his finger, cleaning it off with
some Aqueous Zephrin -- I'm sorry, some Betadine, then I put a
dressing on it, a band-aid.

Q. And you're trained to identify injuries as a nurse, correct?

A. Yeah. Yes.

Q. And the only injury on his hand was the cut on the middle finger,
correct?

A. That's the only place I looked 'cause it was -- that was
specifically mentioned to me.

Q. Okay.

Were you told don't look at his other fingers? I mean his fingers were
attached to the rest of his hand, weren't they?

A. No, I was asked could you please look at that finger, and that's
all. I didn't do any full examination. Mr. Simpson was not under
arrest. I had no doctor there. All I did was just clean off that one
finger, and that was it. I didn't look to see if there was anything
else.

Q. You didn't see anything -- any other --

A. That's all I looked at was that one finger.

Q. Detective Lange was there as well, was he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Neither Detective Vannatter nor Detective Lange directed your
attention to any other injury; is that correct?

A. No, not that I remember.

Q. That's correct?

A. That's correct. I do not remember that happening.

Q. Okay.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about the blood that you drew.

Certainly, would you agree that the security of a reference blood
sample is very important?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know what a reference blood sample is, do you not?

A. A reference blood sample?

Q. That's taken from a suspect.

A. You mean the blood I drew?

Q. Yeah.

And you brought to me yesterday an envelope --

MR. BAKER: It's 2251 I believe.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) A gray envelope that's called an analyzed evidence
envelope, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that envelope sets forth the procedure that's to be used in
drawing somebody's blood, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me show you this first, and we'll put it on the Elmo.

This is one of those envelopes, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is 2251 -- let's start at the top.

Now, at the top of this envelope it says analyzed evidence to be
refrigerated.

That is the correct procedure with respect to blood, that it should be
refrigerated, correct?

A. I have nothing to do with that.

Q. Well, I'm asking you if that's the correct procedure, or do you
know?

A. Blood should be refrigerated, yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Excuse me. There's been an objection, lack of foundation.
Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Stricken.

MR. MEDVENE: We'd move to strike the answer.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is blood supposed to be refrigerated?

THE COURT: What was his foundation?

MR. BLASIER: He's a nurse.

THE COURT: So, he's a nurse.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Peratis --

THE COURT: Lay some foundation with regard to, if you're going do
something, about what he's supposed to do or evidence preservation.
There's been no foundation other than he drew blood.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Part of your training as a nurse is to know how to
preserve blood?

A. Nurses don't preserve the blood. We take it to the lab in a general
hospital. We would take it to the laboratory. They would do what they
do with it. We don't keep it.

Q. Okay.

My question is was part of your training as a nurse about
refrigerating blood, that blood should be refrigerated?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE WITNESS: Blood to be refrigerated?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: It's a general question, blood should be refrigerated?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. And he said as he's trained, yes.

THE COURT: What kind of blood?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Blood such as blood drawn that you drew from Mr.
Simpson?

A. Any blood drawn that has to be examined is to be refrigerated.

Q. Okay. Thank you. That wasn't too hard.

Now, it's also required procedure that the person drawing the blood,
meaning you, is to completely fill up the vial, correct?

MR. BLASIER: We're looking at B. Excuse me.

(Exhibit 2251 displayed.)

MR. MEDVENE: That doesn't say that, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It says the officer requesting withdrawing of the
blood is to tell you to fill up the vial, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, that document speaks for itself, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: It's foundational.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The vial is supposed to be filled up, correct?

A. The vial is supposed to be. Good luck if you can fill the vial up
all the time.

Q. According to procedure on the envelope?

A. According to that, it's supposed to be filled up.

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Does that have a number?

MR. P. BAKER: 2251.

(Exhibit 2251 displayed.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this might be a good time.

THE COURT: Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.

(At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1996
1:43 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THANO PERATIS the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon
recess, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified
further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Peratis, at the break, we were talking about
the analyzed evidence envelope. And this appears --

THE WITNESS: I can't hear you.

MR. BLASIER: You can't hear me?

MR. P. BAKER: 2251.

(Exhibit 2251 displayed.)

MR. BLASIER: Can you hear me now, Mr. Peratis?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) At the bottom of this analyzed evidence envelope
is an affidavit, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's to be filled out by the officer, and signed under
penalty of perjury by you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At the time the blood is drawn, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the required procedure is that, you fill this out at the time
the blood is drawn, sign it, and put the blood in the envelope and
seal it, correct?

A. I don't put the blood in the envelope; the officer does.

Q. It's required, though, to be sealed when this envelope is filled
out, correct?

A. I fill it out and hand it to the officer.

Q. Okay.

But you see number 4 down here?

"When the affidavit is completed, sign below it as a witnessing
officer and seal the vial in this envelope . . ." so the officer
taking the blood is supposed to do what?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. The witness said what he
did.

THE COURT: You may inquire as to what he does.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You just -- in this case, did you fill out
affidavit below?

A. What?

Q. Did you fill out the affidavit on the front of the envelope?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you fill it out at the time that the blood was drawn?

A. Just after I drew the blood.

Q. Let's look at 2252. See if you -- can you look back at the TV, Mr.
Peratis, see if you recognize this as --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I don't know if the witness can see
from there.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show it to you.

A. I can see it.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So we're sure, let me help you -- show you 2252
that is a photograph of the front of the envelope with Mr. Simpson's
reference -- Mr. Simpson's reference vial was put into, correct?

A. Yes.

(Witness reviews Defendants' Exhibit 2252.)

Q. Mr. Peratis, is it your testimony that -- Withdrawn.

Where did that envelope come from?

A. We have some in the dispensary. And I think that one came from the
dispensary. I'm not sure if it was brought in, or if I had it in the
office. We have them, and some of them were brought in.

Q. Did you ever sign the affidavits in blank?

A. Pardon?

Q. Did you ever -- do you ever sign the affidavits in blank before you
collect the blood?

A. Never.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: You may ask him whether he signed this one in blank.

THE WITNESS: You mean before blood is drawn?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Let me show you this one on the Elmo.

You see at the bottom where it's dated, by your signature?

And it's dated.

A. I believe they had the wrong date, the wrong month.

Okay.

Q. Did you fill out the top part where it says Thano Peratis?

A. This is all my writing. That's my printing. This is my printing.
That's my signature. (Indicating.)

Q. You got the correct date in the body of the affidavit, correct
6-13-94?

A. Yes. That's -- I believe that this is the wrong date, put the wrong
one down.

Q. Okay.

Did you fill this all out at one time?

A. Yes.

THE REPORTER: What number is this one?

MR. P. BAKER: 2252.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 2252 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Detective Vannatter did not bring an envelope with
him, did he?

A. That, I can't remember.

Q. Now, the procedure that you used with Mr. Simpson, to draw blood,
was to use a syringe, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And a 10-cc syringe?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we have this as an exhibit by reference?

THE CLERK: By reference?

MR. BLASIER: A number, actually, we can use.

THE CLERK: That would be fine. 2254.

MR. BLASIER: 2254.

(The instrument herein referred to as a syringe was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2254.)

Q. Mr. Elmo [sic], I'm going to put it on the Elmo.

Does this appear to be the type of syringe that you used to draw Mr.
Simpson's blood?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you zoom in a little.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It's calibrated, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. It's quite easy to read the quantity of blood in that syringe, is
it not?

A. Yes.

Q. It's calibrated down to -- looks like about two-tenths of a
milliliter, correct?

A. Calibrated down to ten cc's.

Q. But I mean, between one cc and the next cc, it's broken down into
two-tenths of a cc?

A. Two-tenths.

Q. Okay.

And after you drew Mr. Simpson's blood on the 13th, and it was in this
syringe, you transferred it to --

MR. BLASIER: And I need another number, Erin.

THE CLERK: 2255.

(The instrument herein referred to as An EDTA tube with a purple top
on it was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2255.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 2255, which is called a purple-top EDTA tube?

A. Correct.

Q. That's what we have here on the Elmo, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a vial that has a preservative in it known as EDTA,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The purpose of putting it in that kind of tube is to keep the blood
from coagulating, right?

A. It preserves it.

Q. Okay.

Incidentally, you provided me with the syringe and the vacutainer
yesterday?

A. Yes.

Q. It's called a --

A. I'm sorry. I provided you with about three syringes there.

Q. Okay.

But the one we have up here is the size that you used, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's called a vacutainer because there's actually a vacuum in
that purple-top vial, is there not?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You can take it down.

(Referring to Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you drew Mr. Simpson's blood on the
13th, isn't it accurate that you drew between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of
blood?

A. At the time I drew the blood, that's what I thought I had drawn.

Q. Okay.

A. At that time.

Q. Now, you were asked to testify at the grand jury hearing in this
case, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that took place sometime within a couple weeks of your drawing
Mr. Simpson's blood, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you testified in front of the grand jury, Marcia Clark was
asking you questions, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were answering those questions to the best of your ability?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified, did you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality. It's not inconsistent,
to the best of my knowledge, what they're going to read. It's hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it your testimony today that you withdrew 7.9
to 8.1 cc's of blood?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

That the grand jury -- do you recall being asked the following
questions and giving the following answers:

I'm referring to page 370, line 23. Start at line 26.

Do you recall being asked this question at the grand jury: "Q. Can you
describe for us

what is the method by which you removed

blood from Mr. Simpson. "A. I put a tourniquet on his

forearm, cleaned the site with aqueous

zephrin and put a 10-cc syringe with

about a number 20 needle in the vein in

his arm. And I withdrew about 8 cc's of

blood."

Is that what you testified to?

A. I don't remember it, but if it's on there, I must have.

Q. And do you also recall testifying, starting at line 10, you were
asked again by Marcia Clark: "Approximately how much blood did you
remove?"

And you answered, "approximately 8 cc's," correct?

A. Again, I don't remember that.

It had to be there. I had to have done it, but I don't remember that.

Q. And there was only about a two- or three-week period of time from
the time you drew the blood, until you testified about the size of the
needle, the size of the syringe, and how much you withdrew at the
grand jury, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Then shortly after that -- shortly after that, you testified at the
preliminary hearing in the Simpson case, did you not?

You remember testifying at the preliminary hearing?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Shapiro was asking you questions at that time, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that, too, was in early July of 1994, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Within just a couple of weeks of your drawing Mr. Simpson's blood,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And incidentally, you didn't have any heart problems between the
13th, when you drew his blood, and when you testified at the grand
jury and at the preliminary hearing, did you?

A. Oh, I have been having heart problems for 20 years.

Q. Now, I'm saying between those two periods of time, you didn't have
a heart attack, did you?

A. No.

Q. And how long had it been prior to June 13th that you had a heart
attack?

A. June 13.

Q. 1994?

A. 1994.

I had the heart attack in 1995, June.

Q. But I'm talking about prior to June of '94.

A. No.

Q. You hadn't had one for a while, had you?

A. No.

Q. Now, do you remember being asked the following question: Question
by Mr. Shapiro and giving the following answer that I'm referring to
page 25 line 8. By Mr. Shapiro, "Q. How much blood did

you withdraw from Mr. Simpson. "A. Approximately 8

cc's.

MR. BLASIER: Can you put this on the Elmo, please.

"Q. When you say

approximately, you did not measure the

amount. "A. Where well it

could have been 7.9 or it could have

been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe

and it looked at about 8 cc's I withdraw

the needle from his arm.

Do you remember testifying that way in the preliminary hearing?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the state of your recollection, when you testified
under oath, about three weeks after drawing Mr. Simpson's blood,
correct?

A. At that time.

Q. That you had looked at the syringe. The calibrated syringe,
correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection?

A. I never looked at the calibrations of the syringe.

Q. You remember testifying that I just looked at the syringe?

A. I -- Well, I looked at the syringe I didn't look at the
calibrations.

Q. Okay. And your best recollection at that time, your experience as a
nurse when you drew between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now at some point after your sworn testimony at the
grand jury and the preliminary hearing, you became aware of an issue
with respect to whether blood was missing from that vial, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was about the time of the opening argument in the criminal
case, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you found out that Mr. Cochran had stated in his opening
statement that there was about 1.5 to 2 cc's of blood missing from Mr.
Simpson's reference vial, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And by the way, how did you find that out?

A. A friend of mine called me, told me.

Q. Did you watch that opening statement on television?

A. I didn't watch any of the trial.

Q. You didn't watch any of the trial at all?

A. None of it except --

Q. Did you have a TV set up in your infirmary to watch the trial?

A. There was a TV set up. I never watched it.

Q. Now, after you found out that there was an issue about missing
blood, you became very concerned, did you not --

A. Yes.

Q. -- about whether that had been a screw-up on your part?

A. Yes.

Q. Correct.

So you set about to determine whether or not you had made a mistake
about how much blood you drew, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you tried to recreate what you did when?

A. About two or three days later.

Q. After the opening statements?

A. Yes.

Q. And you changed your testimony, did you not, or you changed your
position and gave a different amount that you drew, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Gave where?

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. After you found out that that was an important issue, you changed
your story, didn't you?

A. When I found out I was wrong, I changed my story.

Q. And you told someone at the D.A.'s office, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And to your knowledge, they told us, right?

A. I -- What?

Q. They told us?

A. I told you.

Q. You remember myself and Mr. Neufeld and Joe Ellen Dimitri, us
coming over to your infirmary to talk to you about that?

A. Yes.

Q. We made an appointment in advance, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Peratis, don't you remember, as we walked in, you had a big
television set there, with the trial on, and you made a comment, "Gee,
I just saw you guys on television."

MR. MEDVENE: Relevancy, immaterial.

THE WITNESS: The television was on.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember that?

A. The --

Q. You can answer.

A. The television was on. I may have seen you there.

I was never -- I wasn't watching the trial. Maybe I would glance up
once in a while. When I'm at work, I'm too busy to watch television.

Q. I'm sorry. Are you done?

A. I said when I'm at work, I'm too busy to watch television.

Q. When you were testifying at the preliminary hearing, that was on
television, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you made it a point to videotape your own testimony, did you
not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you showed it to a bunch of your friends, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. At any time you viewed that videotape prior to the time that you
found out there was an issue about missing blood, did you ever tell
any of your friends or anybody, "Gee, I made a mistake; I really
didn't draw 7.9 to 8.1 cc's of blood."?

A. The minute I heard about it. And I --

Q. I'm talking --

A. Maybe I misunderstood your question.

Q. Before you found out that that was an important issue in the
criminal case, did you tell anyone, after reviewing your videotape
with your friends, or at any other time, "Gee, I made a mistake; I
really didn't draw approximately 8 cc's."?

A. I think the only people I told were you, and Mr. Neufeld and the
D.A.

Q. Okay.

So prior to learning from Mr. Cochran's opening statement, you didn't
tell anybody that you'd made a mistake, did you?

A. No.

I didn't know I had made a mistake.

Q. Now, at some time in 1995, you did have a heart attack, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was when?

A. About June 1 -- 1st of June.

Q. And you were not actually called as a witness to testify at the
criminal case, correct?

A. Yes; I had a subpoena.

Q. You were -- you weren't called to testify as a witness, though,
were you?

A. No.

Q. Now, after your heart attack in June of 1995, you experienced
problems with memory loss, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was after that time that you had an interview with Mr.
Goldberg, where you tried to recreate how much blood of Mr. Simpson
you'd actually drawn, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your recollection of those events, when you made that -- did
that interview with Mr. Goldberg, was not nearly as fresh as they had
been two and three weeks after you actually drew the blood; isn't that
correct?

A. I would say so.

Q. So certainly, your best recollection of how much blood you drew was
from two and three weeks after you drew the blood, as opposed to after
you had your heart attack; isn't that correct?

A. I didn't quite understand the question.

Q. Your best recollection of how much blood you drew, would have been
two or three weeks after you drew it, when you testified twice under
oath that it was about 8 cc's, correct?

A. Well, I -- I remember drawing the blood. That's -- the 8 cc's, I
know I was wrong. I can't say that -- I mean, you'