Stephanie Lazarus Trial: Day 14, Part III

Special thanks to Mortie, who found the firearm images for me. Sprocket.


Monday, February 27th, 2012, Afternoon Session Continued.
The prosecution’s firearm expert, Daniel Rubin is sitting at the prosecution table. This is accepted practice that the opposing counsel’s expert can listen to the other expert testify.

#6 PATRICIA FANT

Fant is a self employed, independent firearms examiner, and on the witness list with the LA County Superior Court. She was a deputy sheriff for (?) number of years. She then transferred to the Los Angeles County crime lab. She worked there for six years. She retired in 1999. Fant gives her CV. She’s performed abut 9,800 comparisons and has testified in federal and municipal court about 140 times.

MO: What does forensic firearms examination do?

PF: Tests expended bullets and firearms trajectory; GSR on clothing, reconstruct the crime scenes and assist with investigations.

During her training she went to five different armory schools. The work is similar to a mechanic, where you go to a firearms manufacturer and they teach you how a firearm is made.

MO: Are you familiar with the Smith & Wesson Model 49?

PF: Yes. It’s a small revolver, advertised as a 2-inch barrel five shot.

The 2-inch barrel is not only (on the?) the Model 49. The measurement of the barrel is actually less than two inches. They’ve been measured as 1 7/8”. Font states they would measure them at the crime lab. Overland asks about how many of these guns were manufactured.

PF: 623,000 of that particular model manufactured.

MO: Is there a (sp?) firearm that is a copy of the S&W Model 49?

PF: It’s manufactured in Brazil and (made with) cheaper metals.

MO: You said cheaper. How much cheaper?

Objection! Sustained!

MO: Did you examine a multi-colored blanket?

PF: It’ a .... (snip) What I would call..... it had arms in it. Snuggy before there were Snuggy’s.

MO: Was it quilted?

PF: It was quilted.

She first performed her analysis on July 1st, 2011. She examined the texture of the Snuggy. It was different types of material.

MO: Do you have an opinion as to (whether or not it could be used effectively as a silencer?)?

PF: I would have to do a test with that blanket to do a (comparison test to) see if there was a detectible difference in sound.

MO: Can you make a determination if the sound would be muffled?

PF: No, I cannot.

A photo is put up that she took of the blanket. She found (what appears to be) a long dark colored hair on the blanket. Detectives Stearns and Jaramillo were present as well as a former colleague of her, Jeff Wally (sp?). Fant details how the Snuggy was packaged when she opened it. It was in a cardboard box and wrapped carefully in butcher paper. After she stated there was a hair on the blanket she took the picture. Detectives collected the hair. She doesn’t remember which detective collected the hair. The detective put it in an envelope and closed it. She doesn’t know what happened to the item after that.

Another photo is put up and she’s asked why she took the photo.

PF: There appears to be a print from a sole of a shoe. (snip)

A close up of the photo is put up.

PF: There is a print or a piece of a print right here (pointing with the laser) a curved pattern with four distinct dark pattern shapes. (To me, the pattern could be the lateral or medial edge of a shoe near where the toes would be.) Stearns and Jaramillo were present when she took the photos.

Overland now moves onto the bullets recovered by the coroner, 422A and 42B.

MO: Did you examine these bullets yourself? (snip) Can you say after examining them that those bullets are Federal bullets?

PF: No, I cannot. (snip) Because the different manufacturers at that time, (purchased?) had bought components from other manufacturers. (snip) There’s only a (hand?) full of bullets out there that are unique to one manufacturer and those bullets are not (these?) (I miss the rest of the answer.)

Overland now introduces a cartridge casing into evidence as Defense OOOO, missing the gunpowder and lead bullet. It’s empty inside. Overland asks if he can pass it to the jurors. Judge Perry replies, “Just show it.”

PF: This cartridge casing still has an active primer.

Judge Perry asks if she did that (take the powder and bullet out). She replies, “Yes.”

An enlarged image of the bottom of the cartridge is put up. You can see come initials, I believe its FC, for “Federal Cartridge”. Fant states this is a cartridge casing manufactured by Federal.

MO: Is there any way to tell on the bullet (lead bullet itself) who it is manufactured by?

PF: No.

MO: Would there have (been?) some kind of stamping on the cartridge case?

PF: It could. Some will have (LE? LF?) Some would not.

I believe Fant states the bullet part is made of nickel. Overland asks if she knows whether or not the Federal bullets (I believe he means cartridges) 38J +P 125.grain (were sold to the general public).

PF: There were sold commercially and to law enforcement.

MO: Was there any distinction in any way those sold to law enforcement and to the general public?

PF: There were not distinctions.

MO: Do you know how many were sold by Federal?

(I believe she either indicates it’s a large unknown number or she doesn’t know.)

MO: Other than stamp by LE on cartridge, there’s no way to tell if a bullet with those specific characteristics (are a Federal? bullet?)?

PF: No. I don’t know. Only by (the) stamp on the cartridge case.

MO: Did you also examine the trajectory analysis in this case?

PF: I looked at their diagram and case... (snip) I looked at firearm analysis reports, trajectory reports coroner’s report, (snip) on this particular (report? case?).

MO: Did you look at all of Mr. Luczy’s reports?

PF: Yes.

MO: All of Mr. Rubin’s reports?

PF: Yes.

MO: Did you ever see that Mr. Rubin had identified those...

Objection! Sustained!

MO: Do you ever use the term, consistent with?

PF: Yes.

It means you can rule it out but it’s consistent with; (snip) abut haven’t seen everything.

PF: Yes, I can say they are consistent with (Federal bullets?).

MO: And that’s as far as you can go?

PF: Yes.

MO: As far as the trajectory analysis, you’ve done some yourself?

PF: Yes.

MO: How many?

PF: I couldn’t say. You do it every time you go to a crime scene.

MO: When you do an analysis, is that were...

PF: It’s easier to do with a pistol than a revolver because you have (usually?) cartridge cases. (snip) So, getting a general idea. Wish it was like CSI on TV but it isn’t.

First, with trajectory you need two parts. Then you do a trajectory rod in there and then you (get?) a general idea.

MO: If you know where ending point is, you can get a general idea, than if you.....

PF: Yes.

MO: Did you look at two holes in a (curtain?)

PF: I saw the diagram.

MO: Did you know (?) (if one?) was lower (or) higher?

There’s another question about ending points of the bullets.

MO: Did you review photos of that rain gutter? (snip) They showed where.... (snip) Did you determine if that impact was a bullet?

PF: I wasn’t able to determine that.

I believe Fant states that she would have done some type of testing on the drain spout to determine if there was lead residue to positively confirm that was the end point of the fired bullet. Then there is a question about the shot that was fired high through the curtain and if she could tell the trajectory of the “high” bullet.

PF: I only know that it was held toward that area.

Her analysis can’t tell her where the shooter was standing.

Direct ends and cross begins by DDA Presby.








Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 38


SP: With respect to that trajectory analysis, (you never performed your own trajectory analysis)?

PF: No I did not.

SP: You never went to the crime scene?

PF: No.

I believe she’s asked if she knew that the detectives identified the hole in the drain pipe as a bullet hole.

PF: They said it was a bullet strike. But I would do a (sodium?) test to determine if it was lead.

SP: Ten they used that as an end point to the lower hole in the curtain?

PF: Correct.

SP: And there were two bullet holes?

PF: Correct.

SP: One higher and to the left?

PF: Yes.

SP: And they did have two points (for the first)? (snip) And they did have two points to do a trajectory?

PF: That’s correct.

SP: You were asked by the defense, (being paid? by the defense?)?

PF: No. I’m not doing this for free. (snip) Through the county, I’m being paid.

SP: You’re getting paid?

PF: I hope so.

Presby goes over the training she did, and that consists of microscopic examination of bullets and their comparison.

PF: That’s correct.

SP: To determine if they had microscopic tool marks to determine if they were fired from the same weapon?

PF: That’s correct.

Presby asks another question about microscopic examinations.

SP: Do you know when that first started to be performed?

PF: 1947.

SP: And people who trained you had been doing it? (snip) Even before you knew there were experts who.... (I miss the rest). (snip) So, in 1986, it was a common investigation technique to have those examinations to be made?

PF: Yes.

There is another question (I believe related to when she was a patrol officer, but I’m not positive. I have a note that says, “As a patrol officer, we’d call homicide.”

SP: In 1986, it was known among police officers that was a technique that could be compared?

PF: Yes.

SP: Did you become familiar with AFS?

The procedures for AFS are discussed, where the paperwork would have to be filled out then entered into a computer system. Police Officers (Departments?) are required to enter into the system. At some point Judge Perry interjects.

JP: I don’t think this witness is qualified...

Someone states, either Presby or Judge Perry, “Well, it doesn’t just spit it out.”

SP: You have to make an active query to get a result?

PF: That’s correct.

SP: One of the things you would look at would be GSR, to try to determine the distance that (obj?)....?

PF: In order to do exact (distance measurements) you need the firearm to do the distance of...

SP: For a contact shot, you can tell just by looking at it?

PF: Yes.

SP: You reviewed the autopsy report? That bullet, right in (the center?) Ms. Rasmussen’s chest, that’s a contact shot, isn’t it?

PF: Yes.

SP: You reviewed the robe?

PF: Yes.

SP: You saw two gunshot holes in the front of the robe?

PF: Yes.

SP: You took photos of the GSR (on that robe)?

PF: Yes I did.

SP: People’s 348, (photo of red robe). This one of the (robe) you took?

PF: That’s correct.

SP: There were burned and unburnt powders there?

PF: Yes.

Presby shows her another photograph that she verifies she took, a close up showing the burnt and unburnt powder and holes. She answers yes.

SP: A short nose revolver tends to (ex? disburse?) more GSR doesn’t it?

PF: Yes.

SP: Because the short barrel leaves less time for the powder to combust?

PF: Yes.

Another photo is put up.

SP: Could both those photos be a (Model) 49?

PF: Without handling it, yes.

SP: They are either a Model 39 or 38? (snip) What caliber is the 49?
Presby then asks about the lands and groves and the twist of a Smith and Wesson Model 49.

PF: Usually five right.

SP: What was the lands and groves for evidence items 42A and 42B?

PF: Five right.

SP: Two bullets were fired?

PF: Yes.

SP: Three bullets into the victim?

PF: Yes.

SP: So there were five bullets fired?

PF: A minimum of five, yes.

SP: Are you familiar with this kind of document? ATF 44837?

A question about all firearms need to be registered, or reported as to their status, something to that effect.

PF: If they buy a firearm from a dealer.

Objection! Cumulative!

JP: Beyond the scope.

SP: Did you review the documentation with respect to bullets from the LAPD (new recruits manual) were permitted to carry in 1980’s

PF: Yes.

SP: They were required to use Federal 125.grain?

PF: Yes.

SP: The bullets, were they 125.grain?

PF: Yes.

SP: Semi-jacketed?

PF: Yes.

SP: Soft points?

PF: Yes.

SP: You say you can’t say they were Federal bullets. (snip) Can’t say... (?)?

PF: Not 100% sure so I can’t say.

SP: Did you compare that hoof shape? (snip) Did you make a micrograph of your comparison?

The witness appears to be confused about the term micrograph and what it is.

SP: Under a microscope of your comparison?

PF: No, I didn’t.

SP: You never went to the Federal plant?

PF: I know from slides from (?) prosecution made...

SP: Did you see the machine? (snip) Did you talk to the (Federal) representative? (snip) So they (kn? know?) you know they used this kind of punch? 

(I’m not positive, but I believe he shows an image of the punch next to the bullets on the overhead.)

SP: You saw they both have this unique hoof shape crime?

Objection! Argument!

SP: (snip) .....by looking at those photos?

PF: Yes.

SP: By look at...

(Don’t know if this was question or answer.) That was a proprietary trade secret. (snip) They don’t share what they’re doing?

PF: I talked to other manufacturers about the bullets, not the crimp.

SP: You looked at the “snuggy”?

PF: Yes.

SP: That’s barrel-cylinder gap?

PF: That’s what it appears to be.

SP: And that’s from a revolver?

PF: Yes.

SP: You identified (the multi-colored blanket/garment) as a snuggy. What ever the object was, you took photos of it?

PF: Yes.

SP: You knew that distribution (of GSR) was something asked to comment on?

PF: (Probably?) Yes.

SP: So why didn’t you?

PF: Because I was just looking at holes in the garment to see if it could be barrel-cylinder gap.

SP: Isn’t the distance from the barrel-cylinder gap to the hole is 2 inches?

PF: That’s correct.

People’s #352.

SP: Also saw you wrote in your report. In your report (regarding the barrel-cylinder gap measurement to the bullet hole) could have been 2.5 inches or 3 inches.

SP: Is it 2.5 inches from the hole?

PF: No.

SP: Is it 3 inches from the hole?

PF: No.

Another question about the firearm that could have left that GSR.

FA: It’s one of the firearms; (snip) there are other firearms that have a 2 inch barrel.

Fant states her opinion that it’s not known if the fabric wasn’t stretched or folded over.

SP: That fabric wasn’t lycra or nylon?

PF: No. (It was cotton. Cotton stretches.)

Cross ends and redirect begins.





Smith & Wesson Model 49
(This image looks the most like the photo exemplars shown to the jury.)

MO: Is Ms. Lazarus paying you for your testimony?

Judge Perry interjects and states, “She’s being paid for services on a court appointment.”

She states she has 20 billable hours so far at $125.00 an hour. Testifying is $200.00 an hour. I have a note about the, “amount of bullet remaining or the type of jacket on it.”

MO: did you review Mr. Rubin’s testimony on the number of different firearms besides the Smith & Wesson that could have (fired the bullets)?

PF: Yes.

MO: It wasn’t just the Smith & Wesson that court have ...(?)?

PF: That’s correct.

MO: Do you know how many (other firearms? number produced?)?

PF: I couldn’t tell you the number. Too many.

MO: The barrel-cylinder gap. That is the measurement of the barrel...(?)?

PF: Yes. 2 inches is the....

Redirect ends and recross by Presby begins.

SP: The bullets, 42A and 42B, they had information (on them?) to compare to a firearm? (snip) That they were fired from the same weapon? (snip) If (you) had the firearm?

PF: Yes. That’s correct.

SP: You could compare?

PF: Yes.

Recross ends and redirect begins again.

MO: The only way to tell if it’s the same (information?) if after the weapon is fired?

PF: That’s correct.

And that’s the end of witnesses for today. DDA Presby states he has one other issue. Courtney Overland leans in to whisper to Mark Overland. The jurors are excused and Judge Perry hears arguments outside the presence of the jury.

It’s regarding Ann (sp?) Young. Presby is requesting a 402 hearing. At issue is the defense investigators memo regarding Ms. Young’s testimony.

(?) I think the plan was... If you could make a ruling now, so if she wouldn’t be called in to testify.

JP: I’ve read the two page document. (snip) What is the relevance of Ms. Young’s testimony?

(MO?:) Mr. Presby has asked if you have any animosity against Ms. Lazarus. There is a certain amount of animosity by LAPD that is preventing us from interviewing witnesses.

The godmother.

She was willing to talk to the defense investigator outside, with the city attorney present.

JP: I’ll hear from Mr. Later.

SP: We see this as extremely collateral. (snip) I think that (it?) would tend to mislead the jury.

JP: I’ll accept that Mr. Later is under oat. (snip) Could (you) tell the court (about?) your interview Mr. Later (with) Ann Young?

RL: She did not want to talk to me. (We) set up a meeting then (she?) talked (to her supervisor?) (She?) said they told her to cancel the meeting, that she would have to get special permission from the chief-of-detectives. (snip) She had to meet with risk management with this issue. (snip) She advised me that she couldn’t be interviewed unless the City Attorney was present and the prosecutor.

JP: I’m going to rule as 352.

I believe Judge Perry asks Overland something about how many more witnesses, or how much longer he has.

MO: Depending on how your rule on Mr. Thompson..

JP: Then you expect to rest... (?)?

I believe Overland states tomorrow at the end of the day.

JP: Let’s talk jury instructions. (snip) Do counsel have a preference?

Overland is under the impression they will use CAL JIC. Judge Perry states that was so in the beginning, when there were special circumstances and lying in wait charges on the table. “But those are out of the picture,” he adds. I believe Judge Perry adds, “I found CAL JIC awkward and CAL CRIM more (?).”

I speculate on how much this defense cost the Lazarus family.

JP: Let’s talk length of argument.

Nunez states not more than two hours. Starting the defense argument....Thursday.....

MO: No more than four hours.

Presby’s rebuttal one hour.

They discuss Overland’s appearance in Department 109 on Friday, and possibly moving that. Judge Perry quickly leaves the bench and we’re done for the day.

Stephanie Lazarus Trial: Day 15, Part III

UPDATED Edited for spelling.

Stephanie Lazarus and defense investigator, Randal "Randy" Later, in discussions at the defense table. © Thomas Broersma

Make inquires to Thomas via E-mail:
thomasbroersma AT yahoo.com

Tuesday February 28th, 2012, Afternoon Session
I’m inside the courtroom. We are on the record outside the presence of the jury. Jeffrey Thompson is on the stand. I believe Judge Perry asks Overland if he wanted to ask the questions specifically but Overland lets Judge Perry ask. Judge Perry tells the witness we need additional testimony from you.

JP: Mr. Thompson, lets start with exhibit KKKK, page 4 of 9, at the bottom sir, (could you?) read 1.4.2.8. then the bold... (snip) 1.4.2.8.e (snip) I believe there was brief testimony (about? the) mediation (report) March 6th, 2009. (snip) Are you familiar with the report?

JT: I’m familiar with the purpose...

JP: Did you have anything to do with the report?

JT: (I) don’t think I had anything specific.... (?).

In March 2009, Thompson was acting director, overseeing the serology unit.

JT: (?) It has to do with how (the lab? technicians) handle samples.

There were two issues.

It had to do with documenting the lot number of the “reagents”. There was no documentation the same “lot number” for the reagent was used for each control sample and the evidence.

Sometimes, if the sample is very weak, we add a concentration. (In the two instances cited in the report) the negative extraction control was not treated exactly the same.

I believe the witness is struggling to explain something technical in layperson’s terms. I believe Judge Perry asks Nunez for help or he automatically offers the information.

PN: Dilution is not done in all cases?

JT: That’s correct.

PN: Only if too much (snip) do you use dilutions?

(Meaning, if in the magnification process, you get too much DNA, then you need to dilute the evidence and the control samples.)

From my memory (since I didn’t even try to write most of this down), in the amplification process, sometimes you can get too much DNA. In those cases, you have to dilute the sample. Dilution materials come in lot numbers (and those lot batches could possibly differ?). There was no documentation that they might have used a different lot number of dilution solution on the evidence verses the sample, if they had to use a dilution, to reduce it.

That appears to clear up the two instances sited in the report. Judge Perry rules he doesn’t see how any of this could related to the case they are trying and rules 352, it’s irrelevant to the case. He asks Overland if he still wants to question the witness on whether or not the other DNA analyst (EYVAOFF? sp?). Overland has decided he is not going to examine Thompson on this issue.

JP: (Do you wish to) argue on whether (or not) you think this is relevant? (snip) From what I get, these (issues in the report) don’t apply to the case.

MO: It’s certainly relevant to the time frame.

JP: I don’t think it shows lab deficient; just that they were not documenting it accurately.

Thompson is excused. 352. Not allowed.

Overland has two issues.

Overland states he will stipulate with respect to cartridges recovered from the house. He will introduce a stipulation as an exhibit.

An issue with respect to medical records relating to a knee injury in December 1985.

I believe Judge Perry asks how that is relevant.

MO: (It) became relevant. She made a statement relating to a knee injury (in her interview tape). (snip) We’ve been attempting to get records from workman’s compensation and there are no such records.

(Maybe the records are too remote in time?)

The people do not want to stipulate to the date of the injury. My notes are not clear here. I believe it’s the people who state their objection is to statements in those records (Overland? has already) obtained.

JP: Start with the statement of the defendant in the transcript.

There is now a search by all sides through the transcript. I’m not remembering anything mentioned about a knee injury. A leg injury, yes, but I believe that was much later in time.

SP: Page 56, top of the page.

MO: There’s another one.

SP: That’s the only one I remember.

MO: We can look for it at a recess.

JP: Let’s see if our jurors are all back.

It’s 1:25 PM.

Overland leaves the room. There is some joking banter between Presby and Matthew McGough (who is sitting to my right) about how nice McGough looks today, that I at first don’t hear, since I was focused on something else at the moment. I don’t know if Presby made the statement as a teasing comment I would hear because I write about what some people wear in court, or if he really is complementing Matthew on his jacket and tie. Judge Perry is off the bench while we wait for all the jurors to get back to court.

Courtney Overland and Lazarus continue to look through the transcript of the interview for the comment about the knee injury.

We have all our jurors. Judge Perry is on the bench and he addresses the jurors.

JP: (I am going to) give you a fact, give you judicial notice. You must accept the fact. May 27th, 1985 was Memorial Day.

(This relates to John Ruetten’s testimony when he testified about when he and Rasmussen became engaged.)

The next witness is called.

#12 GREGORY STEARNS

Detective Stearns, Robbery/Homicide Detective who was assigned the case is called to the stand for the defense. Overland starts off by asking him about the “work log” (or journal, depending on your perspective).

The work log is found (the Clerk had it in the court’s evidence safe? locker?) by the clerk and given to the witness. I believe Overland has copies of pages from the work log that he will enter into evidence, and he will have Detective Stearns ensure that the copy entered into evidence is a copy of the work log.

MO: The work log is before you now?

GS: Yes.

MO: You also looked at the calendar for years 1985-1986?

GS: Yes.

MO: (These were) taken in the search in 2009?

GS: Yes.

Overland asks something relating to the entries regarding John Ruetten he read in court.

GS: I do, yes.

Overland states something to the effect of entries in the work log relating to men other than John Ruetten.

MO: November 29th, 1984. (Could you) look in the work log to see the entry for that date?

Defense exhibit TTTT, a copy is put up on the screen. I try to write what is written on the screen but I don’t get it exact. (Many of the entries in the work log I don’t get exact.)

“I worked with McDonald. It’s weird working (?) especially someone who really likes you....”

Stearns indicates there are words crossed out.

MO: May 19th, 1985.

Defense exhibit QQQQ:

“I met two firemen from Glendale. Two cuties. I even got their phone number so we can go bike riding.”

Defense exhibit VVVV1,VVVV2, September 14th, 1985.

“I met this cameraman, Rodger who was asking Kirk and (?) about me. He was asking for my number. I told them (to) try the station.”

Defense exhibit WWWW1, WWWW2, October 12th, 1985.

“Now I must say that this is not one of my favorite places to eat. (Cami?) was (working?) so I asked to sit in her section. There was a guy there; couldn’t keep my eyes off (him). Gene seems like such a nice guy. Has a (gau? we ate? ??) and talked a bit more. Went to (Gues?) Andy was there. We all talked. We drove on to my house (?) (snip) Twilight Zone tape; got some carrot cake and popcorn. Got sick from (that?) and went to sleep until 7:00 hundred. Got my bikini to lay in (the) sun with Gene.”

Defense XXXX (I miss the date).

“Then I went to pick up a salad and pick up two (guys?) with Gene. Went and met his dad.”

Defense YYYY1, YYYY2, December 16, 1985.

“(Worked?) by myself. Went to see if Gene was there. I went out in his yard and talked with him for a while.”

Defense ZZZZ, January 3rd, 1986.

“Smith keeps hinting at wanting to take me out.”

Defense 5A’s1 5A’s2 5A’s3 January 25, 1986. Detective Stearns reads page 5A’s2.

I drove (hear? here? near?) the (?) on Zelzah and Chatsworth. Saw (Glens? Chens?) car and said hello. He’s so good looking.”

Defense 5B’s, July 10th, 1986.

“I had lunch date with DA Investigator (Alfred? Wintfeld?).”

Defense 5C’s, (first page) July 13th, 1986.

“Al (Wintfeld?) was going to meet me but he got tied up.”

Defense 5D’s (withdrawn).

Overland continues to get his exhibit lettering numbers confused and Judge Perry states the correct lettering.

I don’t know if this next item is substituted for the withdrawn item. September 28th, 1985, from the calendar.

“Manhattan Transfer with Rodger.”

MO: (Do you know) what is Manhattan Transfer?

GS: Yes. It’s a musical group.

Defense 5E’s, October 8th, 1985, from the calendar.

“Bike riding with Rodger.”

Defense 5F’s, January 9th, 1986, from the calendar.

“Flip flops Rodger.”

Defense 5G’s, (miss date 1986), from the calendar.

“Basketball game with Rodger.”

Defense 5H’s, April 17th, 1986, from the calendar.

“Dinner with Gene.”

Defense 5I’s, July 9th, 1986, from the calendar.

“Out with Rodger.”

Defense 5J’’s, August 19th, 1986, from the calendar.

“Bike ride with Gene 1900.”

Defense 5K’s, October 24, 1986, from the calendar.

“Lunch with Gene.”

Defense 5L’s, February 9th, 1985, from the work log.

I shot today, ran a little, shot a 382 my highest. Some guys from the station couldn’t believe I shot so well.”

MO: Are you familiar with (the levels? classifications?) of shooting?

GS: (Yes.)

MO: Would 382 be at the level of an expert?

GS: It would.

Defense 5M’s, May 29th, 1986, from the work log.

“I went to my house, but I didn’t have my key. I took (?) to DeSoto. (snip?) I was south on DeSoto from Devonshire. I was on my way to (ck?) house. On the way I see a car wanted for a warrant.”

Defense ? May 29th, 1986, from the calendar.

“Take in car.”

Direct ends and DDA Nunez conducts the cross.

PN: Can you tell with any of those entries if the defendant was in love (with anyone?)?

GS: I cannot.

PN: If they were (dep?) about romance?

GS: No.

PN: Or platonic? (snip) Can’t tell?

GS: No.

PN: Or (if) the car was taken or for what reason? (snip) Many of these activities were related to (or) during work time?

I miss the answer.

PN: December 16th, 1985, (is a) big entry.

Up in the corner of the entry are the letters XL53. Stearns identifies the lettering code and it indicates Lazarus was on watch in a one person car.

PN: So she went to go see somebody at (a) house? (snip) Occasionally she was on duty? (snip) During work hours?

GS: Yes.

PN: Could you tell if this was a romantic relationship?

GS: No.

Cross ends and there’s no redirect.

Before the next witness is called, Overland reads the jurors a stipulation, entered as defense 5O’s.

The stipulation lists various items that were booked as evidence, seized from the search of the home. It’s property items #96, described as 236 cartridges, and #97, described as 50 cartridges, from a standing gun safe in the Lazarus home.

(If there is more about the cartridges I missed writing down, I believe it relates to the cartridges not being Federal issue.)

#13 ANDREA DILLON

Dillion is an LAPD SID fingerprint analyst. She’s been with the LAPD for 17 years. She has spent five years in fingerprint identification and twelve years in latent print. She presents her CV. She’s performed over 4,000 latent print exams.

The witness’ phone goes off and she apologizes to the court. She’s testified about 30 times as an expert witness.

MO: Can you look at that chart and tell us what it is you are looking for?

Objection! 352. (Over ruled!)

What Overland has put up on the screen, is a typical fingerprint category chart. An overview on how prints are categorized, and the specific points that they look for, unique identifying characteristics. Here is a similar chart. Let me be clear. This is NOT the defense exhibit. It’s not exactly like the defense exhibit, but it will give you an idea of what the exhibit looked like. The exhibit was a single document and these are two separate images I found on the web.





































(I happen to know a bit about fingerprints and what they can tell you about your health risks and the ability to predict disease. This is not conjecture, but from actual studies published in the scientific literature. There is quite a bit of science that links having a certain number of fingerprint patterns, ~whorls, loops, arches, broken lines~ to an increased risk of various illnesses such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, celiac, and gluten sensitivity, etc. But that’s off topic and I apologize.)

The witness explains what she is looking for and after a point Judge Perry interjects.

JP: We’ve had a lot of testimony on fingerprints. Let’s get to the question.

Juror #4 is yawning and rocking in his chair. There is a question about if she did analysis of a palm and fingerprint on this case and if she put those prints through IFAIS. She is asked if she reached a conclusion in relation to that fingerprint and palm print. She compared those prints to Stephanie Lazarus and those prints did not match Lazarus.

MO: Do you know if that fingerprint and palm print were ever identified?

AD: I don’t have that information.

Overland asks about print number five from package A.

JP: Is there something in this you want her to look at?

MO: Yes your honor?

Judge Perry has his elbows on his desk, and he’s touching the pads of the fingertips and thumbs of both hands to each other in front of his face. Then he touches both hands to his forehead.

Defense exhibit 5R’s. It’s a comparison report that says it was assigned to Dillion on February 29th, (200*? 2009?)

AD: This report was written by my supervisor and the part I signed was filled out....

This result is from an IAFIS search.

MO: The DNA kit?

AD: That’s not my handwriting. (snip) The detective requested that search through IAFIS (snip) even though the original (analysis?) indicated the print was unidentifiable.

I think there are a few more questions when Judge Perry takes over the questioning. She put it (the two prints) into IAFIS as the request of detectives as either a fingerprint or palm print pattern. Fifty possible matches came back. She compared those fifty possibles to the #5 print on package A. No match.

Unfortunately, at this point I am totally lost as to the reason Overland called this witness.

The afternoon break is called. After the break, there is a sidebar.


DDA Shannon Presby, DDA Paul Nunez, Judge Perry, Courtney Overland and Mark Overland at sidebar.
© Thomas Broersma

I speculate that possibly the defense did not question Dillion adequately before they called her to the stand. I don’t know that, I’m just doing a little wandering in my mind.

After the sidebar, Dillion is back on the stand. Defense exhibit 5S’s. It appears to be a list of fingerprint numbers. She make that list on December 8th, 2009. (That would have been on the second day of the preliminary hearing.) It’s all the latent prints lifted from the crime scene on February 24th through 25th, (26th? 28th?), 1986.

MO: Did you on June 8th, 2009, analyze latent prints #15 and #16 from packet A?

AD: #15 I made a comparison to (the) defendant. No make.

MO: #16 Did you make a comparison to Ms. Lazarus print? (snip) What was the result?

AD: No make.

MO: As far as you know, these two prints have not been identified?

MO: Correct.

In 2008, she ran these prints through IAFIS. Overland asks her about the number of “matches” that came back from IAFIS.

AD: It’s not really a match. It’s a candidate. (snip) It means the lift of the fingerprint, that have ridge characteristics (snip) that’s possibly (a match?).

MO: And there’s no record kept of those (50 prints?) individuals?

AD: Correct.

MO: And no record kept of those comparisons?

AD: Correct.

MO: So if you ran the search again, would (you) get the same search?

AD: No. That would change each time.

MO: (There’s) no way to recreate the 50 you got that time?

AD: Correct.

MO: (Did you do a comparison of ) #10 from packet D?

AD: Yes. I searched i IAFIS. No make.

MO: Compared (it) to the (defendant? Ms. Lazarus?)?

AD: No make.

MO: Did you compare print #12 to (the) (defendant?) Ms. Lazarus? (snip) To John Rutte? To Ms. Rasmussen?

AD: I would have to look at a copy of the lift itself (to answer).

I could swear Nunez’ face is going through contortions while he is watching Overland conduct his direct of the witness. Overland’s direct is finally finished and cross begins.

PN: You only worked with fingerprint and palm prints? (snip) You didn’t work with DNA?

I believe the witness answers “correct” or “yes”. There are no further witnesses. I’m quite surprised. Overland called thirteen witnesses in his case-in-chief and ended it with smudged, unidentifiable prints, not even worthy of IAFIS.

The jury is asked to step out. I believe it’s Judge Perry who states something about there's notiong abut a knee injury in the interview tape. Only a leg injury in 1998. I believe, but I’m not positive, that Overland states he remembers it from the video. (Is he implying that the transcript is not accurate to the video? He did question Jaramillo about that on the stand.) Judge Perry asks, “She was at work on February 25th. Was she not working prior to that?"

MO: I thought there was something more specific.

Overland goes onto mention something about X-rays for bilateral knee pain on December 27th, 1985. It’s held off to see if it is relevant at all. That is Overland’s last witness.

Judge Perry then brings up an issue with a juror. Juror #7 said she has two issues with Friday. A grandchild is coming by cesarian section on Friday, mid day and she must make a medical appointment for herself at 3:00 PM. It’s either at this point or later, Judge Perry states that she told the clerk she is always the first one to hold the grandchild.

JP: Mr. Nunez, you’re on your feet?

Nunez tells the court he’s just stretching.

JP: I’m wondering if we should just schedule Monday for arguments?

There is a discussion about how much time each side will need for closings and if they will go into two days. Nunez states he will open, taking one to two hours but that will be closer to one hour. Overland states he will be arguing four to five hours. There is an offer to start right at 8:30 on Thursday, go into Friday and excuse the jurors so Juror #7 could get to her granddaughter’s birth. Another option would be to excuse the juror, but no one really wants to do that at this point because she has hung in there this long.

SP: We’re ready to start arguing tomorrow.

Either Presby or Judge Perry is “loathe to take a few days break. They could have the prosecution argue tomorrow or we could start Thursday. More discussion about getting the closings in before the weekend and leaving by mid day Friday.

Overland states he would request Monday for several reasons. The other thing is, he needs to go through the trial transcript and he doesn’t have Volume #13.

Judge Perry states the regular court reporter is out having an operation.

Someone says, “It doesn’t make sense to us...” but my notes do not indicate who said it. Judge Perry tells the group that he gives jury instructions after argument.

But at the same time, Overland has an issue on Monday morning in Federal court. Overland states he would be happy to have the court call Federal court to find out what’s going on (because I believe he stated they have not been able to get a response back from the Federal court clerk).

My notes are not clear on who says, “Don’t know that there’s a rush to tie all the evidence together. Juror #7 is mentioned again. Judge Perry makes the final decision.

JP: I think we should just do it on Monday. (snip) Don’t think it’s a question of jurors (not?) remembering the facts of the case. (I do?) want counsel (to be able to?) prepare (for closings).

And that’s it. The jurors are told to report back at 9:00 AM Monday and excused.

Judge Perry will give counsel his copies of the jury instructions he’s proposed from CAL CRIM. Tomorrow, they will go over (argue) the language of those instructions. I make an immediate decision not to come for jury instructions. I sat through jury instructions on one trial. I won’t sit through that again. I need a rest and my house and gardening projects are suffering, although I probably won’t get to them until we have a verdict.

So far, this trial has been a life changing experience for me, both on a personal level and on a quality of neutral reporting level. I believe my work on this case is the best I’ve achieved so far in documenting what I’ve heard and seen in as neutral a tone as possible. I hope to continue to maintain or improve that level of reporting in any future case I am fortunate to attend.

Today, I will be working on finishing the testimony of defense witnesses that were in the afternoon session on Monday, specifically Patricia Fant. When that is published, I will have written a detailed summary of every witness in the defense case. Tomorrow morning I will put up a Q & A entry for any last minute questions before closings. I also want to let you know that I still have a couple more stories coming from interviews I’ve conducted. Those will most likely be published after the case reaches a verdict.

I have also placed an inquiry with the Public Information Office (PIO) for Judge Perry's court, as to whether or not I will be able to blog on my laptop from Judge Perry's courtroom during verdict watch when he is off the bench. I was able to do this in the second Spector trial in Judge Fidler's courtroom and the James Fayed case in Judge Kennedy's courtroom. I am waiting for a response back on that issue.

Stephanie Lazarus Trial: Day 15, Part II

UPDATED: Edited for accuracy.

Department 104, Judge Robert J. Perry's courtroom,
© Thomas Broersma

Thomas is available for hire and requests via E-mail: thomasbroersma AT yahoo.com
or you can reach him by contacting me.

Continued from Day 15...

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012.
I’m worried that I won’t get inside Department 104 in time. I woke Mr. Sprocket up over a half-our later than his usual time and consequently, breakfast is late and so is he in getting ready and out the door.

As I’m walking from the Metro train to the building on Temple, I come up to a tiny woman with blond hair, shapely legs, wearing a long brown coat that I recognize as belonging to Pat LaLama. When we get inside the building I grab Pat and tell her we’re going in through the employee line, using our green press badges so we can pass the long security lines for the general public. It was my friend and fellow writer Steven Mikulan who passed this suggestion onto me if I was late to court.

I get into Department 104 just in time for Judge Perry to take the bench. Shannon Presby is wearing a silver, black and white striped tie and Paul Nunez is wearing a deep red, maroon colored tie. Lazarus comes out of the jail area in gray pants, a red turtleneck top and a black, loose, hip length cardigan type knit jacket. She is all smiles for her family.

8:35 AM, CBS 48 Hours producer Greg Fisher is here and Steven Mikulan makes it in at the last moment. DDA Presby and Overland chat for a moment in the well before Judge Perry takes the bench. We must be waiting on a juror. Yep. One is late. They are going to hold the juror from entering until they deal with a motion by the prosecution.

On the record. The people have a motion to preclude the testimony of Jeffrey Thompson, who was acting supervisor of the serology lab back in 2009.

Judge Perry indicates he has read defense exhibits HHH, IIII, JJJJ, and KKKK in addition to another document presented to the court by the defense. Judge Perry indicates he will be making reference to the additional documents.

In his review of the documents, HHHH is the inspection report dated April 1998. This is the accrediting agency that certifies labs. (I have in my notes that Judge Perry said "Actually, this is kind of funny to read this ASCLD/ Inspection In 1998 ASCLD/LAB" but I'm not remembering that as I type out my notes.)

Joel Rubin from the Los Angeles Times slips into a seat in the front row.

JP: Indeed, in April 1998, the accrediting board found there were several deficiencies, I will call insufficiency's, when they looked at the lab.

JP: The follow-up in November 1998, November 17, 1998, that report did find that all the had been corrected. They recommended accreditation in the areas and on in the DNA as of November 1998. The DNA portion of the LAPD lab (was) approved (with) accreditation. (snip) I don’t see any value of pointing out the in the deficiencies prior to 1998.

JP: Any deficiencies that may have been observed in the 1998 inspection would appear to the court to be irrelevant and (I) won’t allow (testimony on that issue).

The inspection report dated December 13th, 2004. Judge Perry goes over the findings. There were areas where there was 100% compliance. All of these reports have criteria ratings. (I miss getting the specifics of the various areas completely, but the ratings are all in the 86% to 100%.)

JP: The prosecutions cross identified specific pages and that was helpful to me. (However) cross ignored supplemental findings.

Documentation on temperature recordings on the freezers/refrigerators was not daily and the manual was changed to reflect the weekly recordings. A similar issue for the biology unit.

JP: The supplemental finding was (the procedures were reviewed?) verifying compliance with the procedures. It seemed to me this report found (the lab) to b e in substantial, nearly complete compliance.

Testing, proficiency testing (in the individual units?) (If I’m recalling correctly, was not completely documented.)....

JP: There were no problems that would compromise the later testing in this case. Find (this report?) irrelevant 352; not necessary or helpful in this case. I think it’s remote and there’s nothing to show the work in this case was compromised by these reports.

Now Judge Perry goes over the response to the inspection done January 12th, through the 16th, 2009.

JP: The areas that the defense wanted to go into were, in the courts view, frankly irrelevant. Whether they were completing employee evaluations is irrelevant.

There’s something about tracking evidence in the Van Nuys narcotic unit an the LAPD response (was) the tracking documentation procedures were revised.

JP: In the courts view, nothing applicable to this case in here. In fact, Ms. Francis testified to the documentation they (SID serology lab) prepared when they did their preparations (of the DNA samples).

Then Judge Perry apologizes to the court reporter for burdening her with what he is about to read. It’s a finding in the report in the DNA lab. And it applies to controls an standards as they are properly recorded in the (serology lab’s) case records.

ASCLD/LAB (found) DNA samples and negative concentration extraction controls are not necessarily documented in contamination. (I’m sure I don’t have what Judge Perry quoted from the report exact.) Negative extraction control was not... (snip) It is possible that a contamination in the original sample and control (snip) TRISS EDTA buffer is used with....

I can’t write this stuff. I see 20/20 Producer Lisa Tomaselli is here and takes a seat in the front row to my left.

JP: There’s nothing that I can see in this that relates to any of the work in this case. (snip) There is no suggestion that I’ve seen so far in the two cases that (they found listed in the report) are related to the testing in this case.

JP: It seems to me that Ms. Francis and the other criminalist could have been asked (about the extraction controls). (snip) I just don’t see this as being helpful to the truth of the case (and I’m going to deny it) on 352.

JP: But if you want Mr. Thompson to come back and answer questions on this case.... but I don’t see any evidence that is commented on there that relates to the evidence in this case.

MO: If you want Mr. Thompson here, I will have him here in the afternoon.

Overland then mentions the IDLZOFT (sp?) mistake. One of the analysts that worked on this case. He wants to question Thompson in his issue.

JP: Let’s go ahead and call Thompson and cross on.... (snip) I’m excluding examination for reason stated on exhibits HHH through JJJJ.

MO: So, only thing (to include? exclude?) issues on which.... (snip) so anything contained in report section 1.4.2.8 in 2009?

JP: That’s is correct. Bring out the jury. We’ll have a discussion with Thompson outside the presence of the jury.

At 9:05 AM we finally get testimony started again.

#7 CARL OLSON
Olson works for the Santa Monica Police Department, records manager. He brought property theft records from automobiles that occurred from February 1st, 1986 to March 30th, 1986. He also brought documentation on thefts relating to parking structures located in downtown Santa Monica, between 4th Street and 2nd Street. Multi-level parking structures. These structures are all in the “Beat Three” district = downtown. The general borders are Wilshire Blvd., to Colorado Blvd., and from Ocean to Lincoln. Olson estimates that’s about sixteen blocks.

Olsen provides documentation on thefts in parking structures on March 9th, 1986. There were three records documenting three property thefts from automobiles.

One record is a theft report from Stephanie Lazarus, assigned a DR (crime report record) number of 86-5715. There were two other on that date, also thefts from parking structures. Lazarus’ vehicle was parked in structure #2 at 1235 2nd Street.

The next theft record was from parking structure #6 at 1432 Second Street, DR #86-5733.

The third report, a theft from a motor vehicle, also in parking structure #6, DR #86-5922.

The second listing above, DR #86-5733 was from a Toyota Camry. The third listing, DR #5922 was from a Nissan Sentra.

MO: How many thefts were there?

CO: There were 33 thefts.

In a time frame of February 1st, 1986 to April 30th, 1986. (This is a discrepancy in my notes. At first, I have that it was through March 30th, 1986.)

Direct is finished and cross begins. DDA Shannon Presby crosses the witness.

SP: Do you have copies of the other DR numbers for the 9th?

CO: Sure do.

Presby looks over the documents and then asks some questions.

SP: In DR #85-5733, what part of the car was broken into?

CO: The trunk.

SP: Was a suitcase (the) item taken from the trunk?

CO: Yes it was.

SP: Any report of a firearm?

CO: I don’t see a firearm taken in the report.

SP: The third DR, #86-5922. What was the portion of the car broken into?

CO: The trunk.

Presby reads the rest of the report.

SP: Any report of a firearm taken?

CO: No.

SP: Did you review all the DR numbers from February 1st, through April 30th?

I miss the answer, but I believe he replied, “No.”

Cross ends and redirect begins.

MO: On those two reports on the trunk, how were they accessed?

SP: Objection! Compound!

JP: I’ll allow one at a time.

MO: DR #5733?

CO: It appeared the trunk lock was damaged.

MO: And the other?

CO: It had been pried open.

This witness is finished and the defense calls it’s next witness. It’s a very tall woman, at least 6 feet. She’s wearing a baby pink suit jacket. She has elbow length blondish-gray hair.




Defense attorney Mark Overland and defense witness, Kim Dittbern
© Thomas Broersma

#8 KIM DITTBERN

MO: Do you know the lady sitting at the (counsel?) table?

KD: Yes.

MO: How?

KD: I’ve known Stephanie for (? years?). (snip) I met her at the CPA program in 1983, and we were in the same LAPD Academy class of September 1983.

Dittbern was an LAPD officer for six years. When she was in the academy she became friends with Lazarus.

MO: How about the CPA program? (snip)

KD: (Yes.)

MO: What is the CPA program?

KD: It’s a program for women to prepare for the physical demands of academy (training).

She doesn’t know (remember) how long the CPA training was. Possibly several weeks. It’s physical training, calisthenics, lots of running. Mainly physical training. She observed Lazarus in that training.

MO: (Was she) very athletic?

KD: Yes, she was. (snip) She was excellent. Very fit. A student leader (who) helped bring people into the program. A natural leader.

MO: After (you) completed (CPA) and went into the academy, did you have contact at the academy?

KD: In class, in there together every day. (snip) The women in class (were a) tight knit group.

MO: How many women were there (in that class)?

KD: About a dozen. I can’t say for sure.

MO: How long was the LAPD Academy program?

KD: Six months.

MO: During that six months, did you see (Lazarus) on a daily basis?

KD: Yes, I did.

MO: Saw her interact (with others)?
KD: Yes I did.

MO: Describe the (LAPD Academy) training.

KD: Physically demanding; training in self discipline; academic; legal, conflict resolution.

MO: Did you observe her in conflict (situations?)?

KD: All my memories of her are (?) outstanding. She was a natural leader.

After the academy, Dittbern was assigned to work patrol in Pacific Division. She never worked with Lazarus as a patrol officer.

MO: Did you stay in contact with her?

KD: Yes I did. (snip) We went skiing, also had reunions and class reunions (academy). (snip) Later on in our lives, we both had daughters where our lives came back together.

Dittbern left the LAPD in 1989. After she left, she continued to see Lazarus in social occasions. They attended each others wedding and class reunions.

KD: We got together for lunch a couple of times in those years.

Overland wants to introduce a photograph to his witness. It’s eventually put up on the overhead. It’s taken some time ago; it’s not recent since all the women appear young. The photo is of four women. She is on the far left, she doesn’t recognize the woman next to her, then to the right is Lazarus and then I can clearly see on the far right, a much younger Jayne Weaver who testified about Lazarus showing her lock picking tools.

Dittbern states the photo was probably taken in the late 80’s.

MO: Is that when you were still a police officer?

KD: I cannot say for sure.

MO: During the years you’ve know Ms. Lazarus, (have you formed an opinion) whether or not she is a violent person.

KD: No she is not a violent person. In all the decades I’ve known her, and all the situations... (miss getting the rest, but I believe she adds she’s never seen her be violent).

Direct ends and cross by DDA Nunez begins.

PN: (You were) in the academy with the defendant (for) six months?

KD: That’s correct.

PN: You graduated in March 1984, is that correct?

KD: Right about that time.

PN: You did not work with the defendant at all? (snip) Ho long were you in the Pacific Division?

KD: A little over a year.

She then worked the Harbor Division.

PN: At that point (in time?) you lived in (the?) South Bay?

KD: About that time I did.

She had a six year career.

PN: You said you would see the defendant (about?) once a year?

She moved to Northern California in 1989 when she left the department.

KD: I would see that (as an) average (snip) once a year. (snip) I was thinking of that more as an average.

PN: You would see her during fun times, family times?

KD: Yes.

PN: (You said) the photo was taken in the late 80’s. What is the late 80’s to you?

KD: 1989.

PN: (Did you meet her family?) When did you meet her family?

KD: I can’t remember exactly when I met her family. It was a long time (ago).

I believe Nunez asks a question about her being out of town mostly. I have a question here, but I don’t know who asked it, if it was Nunez or Overland in redirect. “(Her) record in the academy was outstanding?” And the witness answers, “Yes.”

The testimony is complete and the next witness is called. Towards the end of this witness I had a huge coughing fit. It wouldn’t stop. Sherri’s sister Teresa, sitting behind me to my right handed me a bottle of water.

#9 SHERI HUFF

MO: Do you know Stephanie Lazarus?

SH: (Yes.)

MO: How long have you known (her)?

SH: Over 30 years.

They met at UCLA in the dorms. She lived in Dykstra Hall in 1978.

SH: We lived on different floors. She was on the 10th; I was on the 6th. (snip) (We) hung out with the same people.

The witness rattles off a bunch of names quickly that I can’t write down but in the middle of those names is John Ruetten.

MO: Did you ever notice any kind of relationship between Stephanie Lazarus and John Ruetten?

SH: They were friends.

MO: (Did you) notice any kind of romantic relationship?

SH: In college, no.

MO: Was John Ruetten dating anyone else in college:

SH: One of my (friends? roommate? roommate’s friends?) Elaine Schultz.

MO: Did you ever notice any type of jealousy or anger in Ms. Lazarus?

SH: No, never. We were all friends. (We) hung out together.

Overland asks something to the effect if Lazarus was athletic and if she was athletic.

SH: I ran track and cross country. (snip) Stephanie was on the basketball (team?) so we had a common bond (in sports?). (snip) After graduation, I moved out of state. (snip) We talked on the phone, had visits, (during) holidays. (snip) I got married in 1987. Stephanie's was one of my bridesmaids.

MO: When was the last time you saw her.

SH: A few weeks ago.

MO: You visited her at the jail?

SH: Yes, many times. (snip) At least a half a dozen times in the last year.

She would visit her and take one of her (own) kids with her on the visit. She would visit her (before she was jailed). They would go camping together.

SH: She and Scott would come to our house and have dinner. (snip) We/they would come to dinner over the years.

A photo is shown to the witness.

SP: My we approach your honor.

JP: Sure.

MO: How many times have you gone on camping trips?

Objection! Sustained!

MO: How many other occasions...

Objection! 352! Sustained!

MO: Over (the) approximately 30 years you have known Ms. Lazarus, (have you) formed an opinion (whether or not) she was a violent person?

SH: I’ve never seen her be violent.

There is another question with the same answer, “I’ve never seen her be violent.”

Direct ends and cross begins by DDA Presby.

SP: You were very athletic in college?

SH: Yes.

I believe there is a question about Lazarus also being athletic.

SP: You only knew (the defendant in college for one year?)?

SH: I only lived in the dorm (for one year).

SP: What was your major?

SH: Math.

SP: (Do you know what the defendant’s major was?)

SH: Poly Science.

I believe Presby asks a question or makes the reference that the didn’t have many classes together.

SP: How often did you see her when you moved off campus? (snip) So maybe once a week? (snip) Those (relations? references?) to John Ruetten, that’s limited to (your) one year on campus?

In 1981 she moved away from Southern California.

SP: So you don’t have any (precip?) knowledge of her relationship to John Ruetten?

SH: If you asking if I’ve seen them together, I did not.

She was away from Southern California from 1981 to 1984.

SP: You weren’t present in a condo on February 24th, 1986?

SH: No.

SP: You don’t know what happened there do you?

SH: (No) I do not.

SP: When you saw the defendant (with?) in that year on campus, (was she) dating anyone other than John Ruetten?

MO: Objection!

JP: Ask in a different way.

SP: Did you see in that one year, did you see the defendant date anyone?

SH: (No, I did not.)

Cross ends and Overland redirects his witness.

MO: In college, did you set up Ms. Lazarus with your brother?

SH: They did do things together. They went on a trip together. I don’t recall anything beyond that.

Testimony is finished.

I quickly look around and see the back row is filled with people. Some of the people in the back row appear to be either attorneys or detectives, sitting in seats near the door. There is a sidebar and afterwards, Nunez states he will go out and instruct the witness.

Matthew McGough who has been sitting to my right often throughout the trial tells me that the tall slender man sitting in the well directly in front of me was Detective James Nuttall, who solved the case.

#10 JAMES NUTTALL

Nuttall has been a detective with the LAPD for seven years. Before that, he’s been with the department a total of seventeen years. He started in 1995.

MO: Were you one of the investigators in this case?

JN: That’s correct.

MO: Are you still involved in this case?

JN: No sir.

The case was first transferred to him in 2008.

JN: I believe in March 2008.

It was transferred from Robbery/Homicide to Van Nuys.

MO: At the time you were investigating, you were assigned to Van Nuys?

JN: That’s correct.

MO: Did you go through certain items of evidence (involved?) in this case?

JN: That’s correct.

MO: Did you write some notes in this case?

JN: Yes.

MO: Do you have them with you?

JN: They’re with the case file.

Defense exhibit RRRR.

MO: See if you recognize (that).

JN: I recognize these sir. These are my handwritten notes from inventory.

JP: Don’t publish this (just yet).

MO: Look at the numbers on the left side. What do they refer to?

PN: Objection! Hearsay.

JP: I don’t know. I can’t make a ruling. Lets go to sidebar.

A few of the jurors turn and watch a person enter the gallery. I look over at Lazarus’ family and I see her brother Steven write in a notebook. Judge Perry then addresses the jury.

JP: Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step in the back.

DDA Presby gets up and whispers to the female DDA sitting at the detective’s table.

JP: Mr. Overland can continue with his direct.

I believe all of this testimony next is outside the presence of the jury.

MO: Mr. Nuttall, on May 12th, 2009, did you do an inventory of evidence that was seized in this case?

JN: That’s correct.

MO: And the defense document is accurate as to what you did?

JN: I went through everything and got them from the property division and opened each item.

MO: Were they sealed?

JN: Correct.

MO: Did you open and seal and put (your) initials on them?

Overland points to an item #16 GSR Kit on his manually written list.

MO: What was that?

JN: I don’t recall what that items was, that kit.

MO: But you got that from the property division at Van Nuys?

JN: Yes sir.

Overland asks him to look at item #10.

MO: What you did is you opened up #10? (snip) How did you determine fingernails were inside?

JN: I don’t recall opening items.

(My next line of notes is not clear if it’s part of an answer or a question.)

One by one to (protect? proof?) item of DNA.

MO: As you sit here today (you) don’t remember doing (that)?

JN: That’s correct. (snip) I don’t remember each item.

Direct ends and cross begins. DDA Nunez crosses the witness.

Nunez starts of asking about the handwritten paper.

PN: The inventory, that is your notes? (snip) Were you at the property (room? in the?) station?

JN: So that would be when I had evidence out.

PN: What property location? (snip) Do you know how the items got there?

Nuttall ordered them so he could do an inventory.

PN: Did you open up blood evidence?

JN: No sir.

PN: Did you touch evidence?

JN: No sir.

Nunez asks if he remembers if there were lots of envelopes or lots of boxes.

JN: If my memory serves me, there were many boxes.

PN: Did you open up evidence with blood stain?

JN: (No.)

PN: Did you open up envelope with (the) bite mark evidence?

JN: No.

Judge Perry rules to let the jury hear this testimony.

Nunez argues about the GSR kit.

PN: It was in LAPD custody, taken from the multicolored blanket.

He continues to argue passionately. His tone and body language indicates he’s not happy that the defense is going to get to introduce this evidence. He argues that the defense is somehow going to infer that this GSR kit might be one of the GSR kits in the coroner’s office, misleading the jury.

JP: I don’t know what to do with this. What would you have me do?

PN: But to ask about this evidence....

JP: I don’t think I can do anything either way. Let’s have the jury hear the evidence.

10:10 AM, the jury is brought back out.

MO: Is that (an) (accurate? accounting?) of an inventory of property you made that you wrote down that you looked at?

JN: Yes it was.

The defense exhibit shows that it’s hand written on lined note paper.

JN: The numbers, to the best of my recollection, they were corresponding to numbers in the property book.

MO: And look at... (snip) When (you) went through these items of (property?) was each item in an envelope?

JN: Yes sir.

MO: Did you open each envelope?

JN: Which item(s) sir?

MO: Did you open any envelope from (items numbered) one through thirty-one?

JN: Yes sir.

MO: As you sit here today (miss the rest of the question)....

JN: To the best of my recollection, I was avoiding DNA (evidence) and only (opening) shelf stored evidence. (snip) Evidence that was boxed up.

MO: What did you open and what did you do?

Overland now goes over every item on the list starting with item number one.

Overland asks about items numbered one through five. (Although I don’t have it in my notes, I have a memory these were described as blood on the hand written note.)

JN: One through five, to the best of my recollection, they were in a sealed envelope.

JP: So you did open ....(?)?

MO: (What) about six, seven eight? Did you open (the vase and towel)?

JN: Yes I did. (snip) I took them out.

MO: Did you wear gloves? (snip) What kind?

JN: Standard issue latex.

Then he sealed the envelopes (back up).

MO: What about nine, ten, eleven?

JN: I do not recollect opening number nine and ten and remember looking for number eleven (specifically?).

Number eleven was circular, with a square pattern. He examined it and put it back in an envelope. Everything was kept (separate). (snip) We had a long table. (snip) Everything was spread out on a long table.

MO: So you had a number of items on a long table?

Then (he) went through....

MO: Was anyone with you?

JN: My partner.

MO: Was that Detective Barba?


JN: Yes sir.

MO: (Blkt? Blanket?) number 14. (Did you look at that?)

JN: I did.

MO: (You) laid it out on (the) table also?

JN: I did.

MO: Number fifteen. blood from blanket.

JN: I don’t remember taking that out.

MO: Number sixteen. Do you remember any particular number on that GSR kit?

Nuttall doesn’t remember a number on the GSR kit.

MO: Number seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, clothing; (you) took that out and examined (them)?

I believe Nuttall answered “Yes.”

MO: Numbers twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two?

JN: I don’t recall that, no.

MO: Number twenty-three, a fiber?

JN: Yes. I believe it was taken out. (snip) Placed on brown paper. (snip) Fore each item we handled, (it) was done to protect it and to keep it separate.

MO: Do you remember taking the fiber out with tweezers or your hand?

JN: I don’t recall.

MO: Item number twenty-four, (labeled) blood. Did you take that out?

JN: No.

We move onto page two of this two page document.

MO: Number twenty-five. (What about that item?)

JN: It never made the transfer list. (snip) When I ordered it all transferred it should have made it to Van Nuys. That particular item was missing.

MO: So it never made it to Van Nuys?

Nuttall states that he determined it was at another facility and not transferred. The word (that sounds like to me) “Piper-Tech” is mentioned. At the time, there was an SID lab down there.

MO: Number twenty-six, fingernail kit?

JN: No.

MO: Number twenty-seven, fingernail clippings?

JN: No.

MO: Number twenty-eight, (I can’t read what it says on the list for this item)?

JN: No.

MO: Number twenty-nine?

JN: No.

This item was actually two items booked as number one and changed.

MO: So when property was collected originally two items were changed or someone else had changed previously?

JN: Someone else had changed previously.

MO: Number thirty? (the swab)

JN: No.

MO: Number thirty-one? (DNA extract from number nine)

JN: No.

MO: The signature at the bottom, that is you?

JN: Yes, it is.

MO: All (property? properly?) sealed, is that your writing?

JN: Yes.

MO: What did you mean by (that?)?

JN: All inventory was (re-sealed).

MO: Means, what ever it was, that was opened was resealed? (snip) Why did you do that?

JN: Some of the paper wrappings had become worn.

MO: And the reason you did that is to protect the evidence?

JN: Yes sir.

MO: Take a look at defense exhibit EEE. (snip) Is that your writing?

JN: Yes it is.

MO: Did you write that?

JN: Yes.

JP: I’m confused. I thought EEE was a photograph.

MO: (I’m sorry your honor. It’s the wrong number. (I’m) trying to locate the right number.

We take the morning recess. I have in my notes that Judge Perry and Overland discuss off the record about the defense exhibit number.

We’re back on the record at 10:45 AM.

MO: The property report, (you) have that in front of you?

JN: Yes, I do.

Defense exhibit SSSS. Overland asks him about the writing on that. (As I write this, I can remember, visualize it in my mind, what was put up on the screen.) He had handwritten on the property report, a note, something about evidence item #31 about what it might be.

JN: I didn’t date it. (snip) I don’t recall, but it wasn’t during the inventory.

It was done in error, (he realized?) after speaking to the DNA analyst.

MO: (It states) Is the DNA extracts from #30. Nuttall.

JN: That was an error.

JP: The answer is that’s what he wrote.

MO: Why did you feel you had to write that in there?

JN: (I was) making a note to myself from the telephone conversation.

I think Overland asks who the conversation was with.

JN: Jennifer Francis.

That’s the end of direct and Nunez gets up to cross the witness. (I’m theorizing that a lot of this misunderstanding could have been cleared up if the prosecution had went ahead and had Nuttall testify in their case-in-chief.) When Nunez begins this cross, he has more fire and passion in his questioning than I’ve seen from him before. There’s a forcefulness in his tone and delivery. It’s like he has a bit of impatience; like he’s on fire.






DDA Paul Nunez and defense witness,
Detective James Nuttall
© Thomas Broersma

PN: When you looked at (the) information in 2009, you knew that the bite mark had already been analyzed?

JN: Correct.

PN: You were preparing the case for transfer to Robbery/Homicide?

JN: Correct.

PN: You were trying to find out what item number 31 was?

JN: Correct.

PN: So you contacted Jennifer Francis?

Property report, next in order, People’s exhibits #354 and #355.

PN: Do you recognize that as an LAPD property report?

JN: I do.

Nuttall testifies that the property report reflects that a Milena Srbova booked item #30.

The next item he shows Nuttall, I have the date written down as 1-21-2005, People’s exhibit #355.

MO: Can I see that your honor?

Nunez looks irate that he has to walk this item over to Overland for him to see it before he shows it to the witness.

PN: Let me show you People’s #355

JN: That’s another LAPD property report.

Now there’s the date 2-9-2005, a property report by Jennifer Francis, that indicates item number thirty-one is from item number nine.

PN: You didn’t prepare any DNA extracts?

JN: No.

And the DNA bite mark (was) booked by Milena Srbova.

PN: The DNA and bite mark had already been tested?

JN: Correct.

He was trying to find out if (he was) tracking a female in this case. When he got this case, he knew he was tracking a female.

PN: Where did you get this case?

JN: From Cold Case Special.

Nuttall gets the case in 2008 and understood (the suspect) it’s a female.

PN: And you wanted to make sure all the items (were) there, correct?

JN: Correct.

PN: The items were spread out (on that table?)?

JN: Yes.

PN: They had been previously at (a) downtown (location)?

JN: (Yes.)

PN: (You) looked at (the items) in a (special?) area of the property room?

JN: Yes.

PN: You talked about (items on?) a table?

JN: Yes.

PN: Items in a box?

JN: Correct. (snip) We did it individual item by individual item. (snip) Package by package.

PN: All the items were not in one box?

JN: That’s correct. (snip) There were no more than two, with large individual bags inside.

PN: And it’s your testimony that you didn’t open up.... (?)?

JN: I did not.

Nunez goes over several items. He opened the nail (head?) package and sealed it back up. The blanket, he looked at the blanket.

PN: That GSR kit was labeled for the blanket, correct?

JN: Yes.

PN: It was not from the coroner?

JN: Yes.

Nunez goes over in detail every single item he looked at and wrapped back up.

PN: All the while wearing gloves (while) opening up (items?)?

JN: Yes.

PN: And many items you had opened up had already been tested in 2005?

JN: Yes.

PN: The purse? (snip) The vase?

JN: Yes, yes.

PN: No two items of evidence were ever opened at the same time?

JN: That’s correct.

He was opening up items to ensure everything was there. He is asked if another detective (his partner I think) was there. (Yes.) He is asked if it was normal if the property officer to be there as well. (Correct.) Then, once he was finished the property officer took custody of the items.

PN: When you made note number 31, did you have all the DNA reports in front of you?

JN: No.

PN: Did you know about all the testing that Jennifer Francis had done and her notations?

(I have “correct” but I’m not sure that makes sense.)

PN: You knew she had tested item number 30?

JN: Correct.

PN: Did you look at crime scene photos?

JN: Yes I did.

PN: You also looked at the BMW (reports?)?

JN: Yes.

PN: Was it stripped?

JN: No.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

MO: At the recess, did you have a conversation? (snip) Did you speak to the prosecutor, Mr. Nunez?

JN: He wanted to clear up some issues.

MO: What did he say to you? (snip) Did he appear to be upset?

JN: Knowing Paul, and the heat of the moment (snip) He felt we needed to address some (things?).

MO: Were those his words?

JP: You (know?), the prosecutor is not on trial here. 352.

MO: The GSR kit. Did he tell you that GSR kit came from the blanket?

JN: Yes.

MO: So, you don’t remember... (snip) were there other things... (?)

Judge Perry interjects his own question.






Defense attorney Mark Overland and defense witness, Detective James Nuttall
© Thomas Broersma

JP: Did he tell you what to say?

JN: No sir.

JP: Are you telling (snip?) the truth?

JN: Yes. (snip) That exam was three years ago. I’d have to refer to the original property report. (snip) I’ve been removed from the evidence (snip). Paul has been working with it every day.

MO: So you repeated what he said?

JN: No sir.

MO: Did you interview John Ruetten in this case? (snip) Did you make the statement

PN: Objection! Argument! Sidebar!

Redirect ends and recross begins.

PN: When you had .... (snip) ... separated from the case for three years?

JN: Yes sir.

(I don’t have it in my notes but I’m remembering that at some point in this cross a new document is shown to the witness.)

PN: The GSR kit, that was inventoried by you .... (snip)? Does that property (report?) refresh your memory (where it?) came from?

JN: Yes.

PN: Did that property report indicate it came from the blanket?

JN: Yes.

Objection! Hearsay! Over ruled!

Overland demands to see the property report.

MO: Can I see that! Can I see that!

Cross ends and redirect begins.

MO: That property report (that was) shown to you (snip) ...going to show to you again. (snip) Look at (the) date that was booked.

JN: Booking date, February 26th, 1986.

Another document Overland wants to present the witness. Nunez and Presby look over the document first.

MO: Do you recognize that document? (snip) What type of document that is?

JN: (I don’t.)

MO: Does that look like a property card?

JN: It doesn’t to me.

Overland has no more questions but he is asking Judge Perry not to excuse the witness yet.

#11 DAN MYERS

Myers is an LAPD Homicide Investigator. He’s been with the department for 24.5 years and homicide for 17 years. He was involved in the search of Lazarus’ locker and recovered some items from her locker.

MO: Did you make a report?

DM: There was a property report generated.

MO: Did you (receive? a) handgun from the locker? (snip) What kind was it?

DM: (A) Smith & Wesson 38. (snip) I’d have to look at the report. Model 67-1. (snip) I’m not the author of the report.

It was a 4” barrel weapon and he (received?) ammunition.

Item #74 on the property report were 38 caliber +P Remington Peters (cartridges). Myers explains that “plus P” means there’s just a little extra powder in the cartridge.

SP: People stipulate there were 31 rounds of ammunition.

Looking over at the Lazarus family, I note that Lazarus’ mother Carol and another woman with the group write notes in a notebook.

Myers goes over all the ammunition that was recovered. Item after item of groups of cartridges that were booked into evidence. Not a single cartridge was the “Federal” type of bullets (cartridges) that the prosecution’s witnesses say was recovered from Rasmussen’s body. There’s no cross of the witness.

Overland has run out of witnesses at 11:25 AM. The defense is trying to get someone here.

JP: Are they in the building?

I don’t know if he is answered or not.

JP: Why don’t we send the jury off to lunch. The jury is ordered back at 1:30 (2 hour lunch) and counsel ordered back at 1 PM for more testimony from Jeffrey Thompson about the findings in the 2009 ASCLAD/LAB audit report.

To be continued with Day 15, Part III
.....