DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SLAVIK:
MS. SLAVIK: Good morning, Investigator Jimenez.
LANCE JIMENEZ: Good morning.
MS. SLAVIK: Are you employed?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Who is your employer?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The City of Los Angeles Fire Department.
MS. SLAVIK: Is that sometimes referred to as LAFD?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. Correct.
MS. SLAVIK: What is your current title?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Arson investigator, firefighter.
MS. SLAVIK: What year did you start working at the LAFD?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was hired in February of '03, so a little over 22 years now.
MS. SLAVIK: When did you become an arson investigator?
LANCE JIMENEZ: In 2011, so a little over 14 years now.
MS. SLAVIK: What was your role prior to becoming an arson investigator?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Firefighter. I was -- also went and did a time as a peer instructor at the academy, and then I later on became a paramedic.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you held any other titles?
LANCE JIMENEZ: With the fire department?
MS. SLAVIK: With the fire department or otherwise?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. I actually joined LAPD a while back, and I was a reserve officer, went through three levels of reserve training, three, two, one. And I did that for a few years.
MS. SLAVIK: How long were you a reserves officer?
LANCE JIMENEZ: For 17 years. 16, 17 years.
MS. SLAVIK: Can you describe your educational background?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I have a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in kinesiology.
MS. SLAVIK: And can you explain to the jury what kin -- I'm going to say it wrong.
LANCE JIMENEZ: It's study of human movement, biomechanics, or exercise, things like that, health and fitness.
MS. SLAVIK: Going back to your role as an arson investigator, what are your duties and responsibilities?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We're basically detectives for the fire department. We work hand in hand with LAPD to work on the crime of arson, which is intentionally set felony crimes. And I do everything from crime scene investigation, origin and cause determination, evidence collection. We look into going into law enforcement as far as the follow-up cases, the detectives, so filing a case, report writing, testifying in court, things of that nature. Like a detective role for the fire department.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, you mentioned that one of your duties is origin and cause investigations. Can you explain to the jury what that is?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yeah. So whenever a fire occurs, the duty for me is to go in and try to determine where that fire originated and how the fire started. And there's a systematic approach that we use to determine that.
MS. SLAVIK: So I want to talk about that systematic approach. But first, is it fair to say that the origin is where the fire started?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: And the cause is how the fire started?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: So how do you go about conducting such an investigation?
LANCE JIMENEZ: So I use a systematic approach that I've been trained over the years to go in. And I usually go from starting from the dispatch of the call. And I get a call out, what we may have, what type of fire it possibly could be.
So I might do a little research on the way, maybe follow up with the 9-1-1 caller to see what it is. We might pull up the address, look to see what we're looking at, a building, a trash can, a street corner, apartment, commercial, whatever it may be. We try get an idea.
When we get there, then I will make sure the scene is secure, hopefully we still have resources on scene, maybe a LAPD officer holding the scene or a fire company or battalion chief or somebody of that nature that called us out.
And I'll start with identifying pertinent people that might be involved or witnesses or -- kind of set that aside so we maintain those people or victims that might still be there. We'll look at do they get transported to the hospital, anybody gone that route. Was there maybe a suspect on scene.
So we kind of identify some things first, safety wise, to kind of get organized. And then I'll do my actual scene investigation. And starting from the outside in, let's say it's like a single-family dwelling, I'll go through and I'll go around the perimeter of the building, look at the exterior of the building, what kind of burn patterns do I see, did the windows break, were doors opened or broken open or kicked open or burned through, was the roof burned through. I'll kind of do a lap around. Work my way in from the unburned area to the most burned to try to pinpoint where the burn patterns lead me to where the most severe area of the fire may be.
From that, we will dig through the area and kind of get an idea of what possible causes may be there. We'll go into an extensive collection of possible data, which was, like I said, witnesses. I might go back and talk to witnesses. I'll look at maybe surveillance footage. We'll look at any items in the area that may have been potential causes. I'll kind of create like a general hypothesis of what possibly could have been the cause.
I'll work with another partner usually who will also do the same thing on their own. I'll collaborate with that partner. We'll take photos. We'll look for any evidence we might want to collect. Then we kind of break it down. Is there an actual cause that might be crime related? Is this an accidental fire? Is this an intentional fire? Is this a fire that's caused by the natural effects? Or is this something we just don't -- we don't know and we can't figure it out. We may label that undetermined and kind of go from there.
MS. SLAVIK: Pausing you there, Investigator Jimenez.
LANCE JIMENEZ: Sure.
MS. SLAVIK: You mentioned that you typically work with a partner; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Correct.
MS. SLAVIK: How is work divided between partners?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Usually we work in pairs. They'll be a lead investigator and then like a partnered up to be a colleague as assistant, so to speak. They'll usually do the photos, the scene collection for evidence. And then maybe do some witness interviews. But we always meet up with whoever called us out, like instant commander in the beginning, and then we'll split up and do our duties. And then we meet back up and kind of collaborate and corroborate our findings and what we both think, and come up with like a cause and origin together usually if we can.
MS. SLAVIK: As an arson investigator, what determines whether you and your partner respond to the scene of a fire?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We have different ways of being called out. Usually three different ways. We might get a dispatch from our central command center, which is basically like our -- we call it our metro dispatch, like if someone calls 9-1-1 and says, hey, there's a fire. So usually the fire company on scene will call our dispatch to respond to call us out. So that's one way.
And the other way may be just maybe a fire company didn't respond, and we'll go out and follow up with maybe LAPD who is out there already. LAPD being Los Angeles Police Department. Sorry. LAPD will be out there saying we have a fire, no fire companies, can you come take a look at it. Fire might be out.
And the last way, we might be doing follow-up from the day before, something might have happened maybe an owner of a vehicle or owner of a home or somebody that they notice a fire after the fact, and they called and we're going to go out and do a follow-up on it without anybody there.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, approximately how many fires have you investigated in your career as an arson investigator?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I've been with -- before I was on as an arson -- I partook in a lot of different investigations while I was prepping to get into the arson section. And then we average about 100 a year as an investigator. That's assisting in investigations or being the lead investigator. So over the last 14 years, I would say well over 1,000 plus. 1,200 possibly. Maybe more.
MS. SLAVIK: And what sort of fires have you investigated?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Los Angeles is pretty crazy. I'm not going to lie. So I've seen everything from trash on the ground to commercial buildings with fatalities and everything in between. Auto fires, dumpsters, single-family dwellings, apartments. You name it, I think I've seen it over the last decade and a half.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you receive training to become an arson investigator?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Absolutely.
MS. SLAVIK: What sort of training?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I went through basic training through private fire academy where I went through and put myself through a fire academy before I got on with LA City. I went through extensive fire academy while on the job with LA City, learning about fire behavior, building construction, basic fire fighting tactics, little bit of origin and cause determination.
As a firefighter, I experienced fire firsthand, fighting fires on the end of a nozzle, inside a building, fire burning around me, feeling and seeing fire travel and behavior.
To get certified, I went through state training, few hundred hours of -- a couple hundred hours of state training to be certified through the California State fire marshal as a fire investigator one and two. Also did a lot of other training throughout the state and throughout the fire department.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you received training specific to auto fires?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: What sort of training is that?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Went through advanced forensic fire training for auto fires in the --
(Court reporter clarification)
LANCE JIMENEZ: Advanced forensic fire investigation for auto fires in the City of San Obispo, a course for that.
MS. SLAVIK: What if any certifications do you hold?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was training as a terrorism liaison officer. I've had advanced training in weapons of mass destruction, hazmat training. Also certified as a state fire marshal, like I said, through the California state fire marshals fire investigator or -- yeah, fire investigator. I have the forensic auto fire class. I've had certifications as an EMT. I'm also a paramedic, like I said. And through LAPD as a reserve officer, those certifications as well.
MS. SLAVIK: As an arson investigator, have you testified as an expert witness on prior occasions?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. Several times over the years.
MS. SLAVIK: Can you ballpark how many?
LANCE JIMENEZ: It's tough to say. Throughout the LA County court system we have, I think, five different courts. I've testified at all of them throughout the years. It would be tough. I'd say within the last four or five years, probably at least a dozen or so.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you ever not been qualified as an expert?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Never.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, at this time, the government moves to qualify Investigator Jiminez as an expert in fire cause and origin determinations.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: He'll be accepted on that basis.
BY MS. SLAVIK:
MS. SLAVIK: Before we move on, Investigator Jimenez, I just want to make sure that we understand the limits of your expertise.
As part of your duties as an arson investigator, do you perform DNA testing or analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you had any training with respect to DNA and analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Not in testing or analysis, no.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you have any expertise related to DNA testing and analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No.
MS. SLAVIK: Same questions regarding fingerprint analysis.
As part of your duties as an arson investigator, do you collect fingerprints?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I've been trained on latent prints, but I don't personally do that, no.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you perform fingerprint analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No.
MS. SLAVIK: And do you have any expertise with respect to fingerprint analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No.
MS. SLAVIK: I want to know focus your attention on January 9th, 2012.
Were you working that day?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: What was your shift?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was on a 24-hour platoon shift with another partner, working a 24-hour car.
MS. SLAVIK: What is a 24-hour platoon shift mean?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We're just working a 24-hour shift, available for the whole city to be dispatched throughout the City of Los Angeles.
MS. SLAVIK: Were you working with a partner that day?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. I was.
MS. SLAVIK: Who was that?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Mike Camillo.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you respond to an auto fire in the Hollywood Hills that day?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: I want to direct your attention to an auto fire at 8925 Hollywood Hills Road on January 9th, 2012.
Do you remember responding to that fire?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: How were you alerted to that auto fire?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I believe that was through a dispatch, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. SLAVIK: And can you just explain what dispatch is?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Like I said before, our metro communications will let us know that we've been requested at a fire scene.
MS. SLAVIK: Approximately what time of day were you alerted?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I want to say around 11:00, and we were located at our station. It wasn't too far away, so we were probably there within 30 minutes.
MS. SLAVIK: What information were you provided by dispatch?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The auto fire and parked in a driveway.
MS. SLAVIK: And this auto fire was reported at 8925 Hollywood Hills Road; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: What did you do after you were alerted to this auto fire by dispatch?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We went to proceed to investigate, like any other normal investigation we would conduct. We arrive. We talk to the company that's there. This particular engine company was there with a fire captain and an engineer and two other firefighters.
MS. SLAVIK: I want to walk through that step by step. But, first, can you describe the residence?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Very -- Hollywood Hills is a very affluent area in Los Angeles, kind of up in the hills by Mulholland. It's nicer homes up on the hillsides, more up and away from the city, so to speak. So we consider that kind of more of an affluent area, very nice home, offset from the street.
MS. SLAVIK: And what about the home itself, can you describe that?
LANCE JIMENEZ: This was a home kind of offset from the long driveway, kind of a large fence in front of the yard, so you couldn't really see into the home.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, you started to get into this, but who was on the scene when you and your partner arrived?
LANCE JIMENEZ: There was a fire company there.
MS. SLAVIK: What's the first thing you do -- you did when you arrived at the scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We catch up with the captain to find out what they saw, what they did, and why they called us out.
MS. SLAVIK: What did you do next?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We were identified that there was a witness there so we made sure that person stayed by. We were told that the victim was there, so asked that that person standby. And then we were shown the vehicle that was -- had the fire involved, and then we started our investigation.
MS. SLAVIK: And just generally speaking, what did you observe with respect to the scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: So for this vehicle was parked fairly close to the garage. It was a long driveway. There were two other cars parked behind it going out to the street. The street was kind of offset so it's hard to see from the -- I'm sorry. The driveway and where the car was is a little offset from the street, hard to see.
So when you walk into the driveway, it's more visible. I observed a black Porsche that had had a fire. It was involved in a fire.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you inspect the black Porsche?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did.
MS. SLAVIK: What was the condition of it?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Well, first, I inspected the surrounding area if I could backtrack.
So there was a lot of vegetation and foliage around the vehicle, kind of blocking the view. So I checked to make sure none of that is burned. I didn't see any of that burned. I look around the car to see if there was any fire damage to the exterior of the car. I'm looking for things that may have got into the car from the outside. I didn't observe any of that.
I observed -- it was a black Porsche 911 with a canvas top. There was a cut on the top of the vehicle or the top of the roof, about a foot long. And inside I observed that a fire occurred inside the passenger space compartment.
MS. SLAVIK: What if anything did you observe inside the Porsche?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Inside the Porsche, when we opened it up, there was burn patterns throughout the seats, the center console, little bit of carpet. Some burn patterns on the interior roofing.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you observe any items within the Porsche?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. There was a bottle on the front seat. And there was a -- like a cloth handkerchief on the center console that was burned.
MS. SLAVIK: What if anything did you observe around the Porsche, outside of it?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Outside the Porsche there was a couple extinguishers that the fire company brought up. There was also a disposable lighter within close proximity, couple of feet from the Porsche on the ground by the drivers side.
MS. SLAVIK: And what if any initial hypothesis did you draw after making these observations?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Well, I look at -- I look at different things that may potentially cause the fire. I look -- first, we always look at the engine, see if there's any electrical issues. The engine in the back of the Porsche was not damaged. The backseats weren't damaged, really nothing burnt through the rear. Look at the battery area, the battery in the front. There's nothing indicating in the front console any kind of fire occurred.
So I try to rule out any kind of accidental type thing. Nothing natural. Weather is good.
Inside, I did observe the bottle. I smelled what I know to be gasoline inside the vehicle when we opened it up. And inside the bottle we observed a liquid. That odor gave to me what I know to be gasoline. And the handkerchief there. So I made a general observation this may have been a Molotov cocktail.
MS. SLAVIK: Can you explain to the jury what a Molotov cocktail is?
LANCE JIMENEZ: A Molotov cocktail is a makeshift fire bomb. The idea it's a breakable container with an ignitable liquid poured inside, some kind of a cloth wick or something stuck inside the nozzle of the bottle. They light that on fire. The object is -- it breaks open. The gas and the vapors disperse with the flames and it creates a fire bomb. And a very -- cause a lot of damage for a fire.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, focusing on the damage to the Porsche. You said that you saw smoke and fire damage to the Porsche; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: There was a lot of heat damage to the center console, the door, and the windows. I didn't observe any broken windows. So the windows were still intact. And there was a lot of burn patterns on the seat and the floor carpeting.
MS. SLAVIK: And what in your view caused this damage?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The bottle itself, I formed the opinion that it was a Molotov. And that the handkerchief had burned but fell out of the bottle. The bottle had dropped in, in my opinion, and it didn't break. So the gas kind of splashed around causing the burn patterns I observed.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you seen other auto fires called by Molotov cocktails?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Many, yes.
MS. SLAVIK: And how did the damage to the Porsche in this case compare to the other auto fires that you've seen caused by Molotov cocktails?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Although there was fire damage to the vehicle, it wasn't as extensive as what I usually see when the Molotovs do break and extensive fire damage. I've seen cars burn all the way down to the frame from these type of fire bombs.
MS. SLAVIK: And why was the damage to the Porsche in this case less significant?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I formed the opinion that the cloth was more of a silky type material. I think it just fell out of the bottle. The bottle didn't break so the liquid wasn't able to disperse with I think the objective intent of it. And it just did -- and the fire just smoldered out inside. It stayed small and relatively didn't have enough oxygen to cause the damage I think it was intended for.
MS. SLAVIK: How close to the residence was the Porsche parked when this incident occurred?
LANCE JIMENEZ: A few feet away, maybe ten. I would be approximating.
MS. SLAVIK: If the Molotov cocktail had broken, if the glass bottle had broken, what if any damage could it have caused to the residence?
LANCE JIMENEZ: In that particular incident, I think the foliage around directly would have been more exposed by the heat, and that would have definitely caught fire, spreading through the vegetation of the hillside. And then if the radiant heat gets big enough and the fire gets big enough, it definitely would have affected the home and the roofing material on the garage, causing the home to burn and the vehicle behind it as well.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, you said that you observed the Porsche; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you form an opinion as to how the Molotov cocktail got into the interior of the car?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yeah. At the end of my investigation, I formed the opinion that somebody had lit it and dropped it -- cut the roof and dropped it inside of the front seat.
MS. SLAVIK: So after making these observations as to the scene, what did you do next?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We proceeded to look for any surveillance cameras. There were cameras there. I was informed that they weren't recording. We also looked for witnesses, canvassed the area. We only had one witness that was there, but they just came after the fire had already been set. So they weren't -- they didn't see the actual fire occur. And then we -- I was able to speak with the victim of the -- of the Porsche in the home.
MS. SLAVIK: What did your partner do?
LANCE JIMENEZ: He took photos and proceeded to collect the evidence. We did collect evidence on scene.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you look at the photos that your partner took at or around the time that they were taken?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you looked at them since?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: When?
LANCE JIMENEZ: As recently as yesterday I believe, or the day before yesterday.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, you should have a binder next to you that contains two photos in evidence which are Government Exhibits 8C-101 and 102, as well as what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibits 8C-103 through 141.
Have you reviewed the contents of that binder, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: How do you know?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was given this binder to look at and I initialed the front of the binder.
MS. SLAVIK: And do you recognize the photos that are contained in that binder?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. These are what I know to be the photos that my partner took on scene.
MS. SLAVIK: Do these photos fairly and accurately depict what you observed on January 9th, 2012?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. They were taken the day of while we were there.
MS. SLAVIK: The government offers Government Exhibits 8C-103 through 141 into evidence.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. 8C-103 through 141 will be admitted.
(Government's Exhibits 8C-103 through 141 received in evidence)
MS. SLAVIK: I want to walk through some of these photos with you, Investigator Jiminez.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, can you please publish Government Exhibits 8C-101 and 103 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, can you explain to the jury what we're looking at in these photos?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. The photo 101 is the front of the residence, the fence I had spoke about with the vegetation. And then the one adjacent to that, is that 103?
MS. SLAVIK: The one on the right is 103, yes.
LANCE JIMENEZ: It's the vehicle in front is the Porsche, and then the other two cars that were parked. You see myself there with some of the fire companies that were there.
MS. SLAVIK: And how would you describe this driveway that's depicted in 8C-103?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Like I said, it was a long driveway that kind of fed to the street, and the front part of that driveway was kind of hidden by the vegetation.
MS. SLAVIK: And where is the black Porsche in this photo?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Up in front towards the garage.
MS. SLAVIK: Thank you, Ms. Foster. You can take this down.
And could you please publish Government Exhibits 8C-104 and 107 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: What are these photos, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That is myself there off to the left of the vehicle and then that's the vehicle that we were referring to that was burned.
MS. SLAVIK: This is the black Porsche that was burned?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Correct.
MS. SLAVIK: Thank you. You can take these down, Ms. Foster.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, Investigator Jimenez, you said that the canvas roof of the Porsche had been cut; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: It was my opinion, yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish Government Exhibits 8C-108 and 111 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, can you explain to the jury what they're looking at here?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yeah. That's the canvas roof that I was referring to, and you'll see that a line straight to the right of that cut, looks like it was intentionally cut.
MS. SLAVIK: I want to focus now on the damage to the Porsche.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish Government Exhibits 8C-113 and 116 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, what are we looking at here?
LANCE JIMENEZ: So 113 would be looking from the passenger space, passenger door looking towards the driver's seat. And you'll see the cloth I was referring to on the center console there with the bottle in the drivers seat.
116 would be the opposite side looking from the driver's end, you'll see a closer view of that bottle that we had observed and the burn patterns there. You can see the burn patterns there right along where the nozzle of that bottle where the liquid was kind of leaking out causing that burn pattern.
MS. SLAVIK: And do you see any items that you later collected as evidence in these photos?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. We go back to 113, you see the bottle there and then you'd see the cloth material there.
MS. SLAVIK: And is that approximately where the cloth was when you arrived at the scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you take these down and publish Government Exhibit 8C-114.
MS. SLAVIK: What is on the -- what is depicted in the photo here, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: So you'll see the driver's door, which shows you kind of the smoke and soot damage to the window that I referred to earlier where the window did not break. You'll see more of a burn pattern towards that lower bottom corner of the door, which coincides with where that bottle was at.
MS. SLAVIK: And, again, how does the damage to this Porsche compare to other auto fires set by Molotov cocktails that you've observed?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yeah. There's severe damage, but not nearly what I would normally see with a Molotov where the distribution of gasoline would have been more effective and causing more of a catastrophic damage of the vehicle. I've seen some vehicles that really just burn as if you wouldn't even recognize the vehicle.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, can you take this down. Could you please publish Government Exhibits 8C-119 and 120 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: What are we looking at here in these photos, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: You're looking more up towards the rear-view mirror and the roof again and the canvas roof, and you'll see some of the heat damage to the top of that roof.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you reach any conclusions as to what caused this damage?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Well, like I said, I believe it was originally cut, but then once the fire burned, you get a little more heat damage towards the top as the heat rises. Radiant. Radiant heat damage.
MS. SLAVIK: Caused by the Molotov?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Correct.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish 8C-122 and 124 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: And what are we looking at here, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: You'll see some minor burn patterns here. And you'll see some of the roofing material that kind of melted down and dropped down, and you'll see some what looks to be like a splash pattern from when the bottle hit inside the car.
MS. SLAVIK: And looking at --
LANCE JIMENEZ: I'm sorry. And you'll see the cloth in 122.
MS. SLAVIK: Thank you.
MS. SLAVIK: You can take these down, Ms. Foster.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, Investigator Jimenez, you testified that you collected several items as evidence; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Correct.
MS. SLAVIK: I want to just run through some of the photos of those items.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish Government Exhibit 8C-128.
MS. SLAVIK: What is this item?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That's the bottle that we collected.
MS. SLAVIK: And what kind of bottle was it?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I believe we have a better photo if you want a close up. But it's a 40-ounce malt liquor bottle, Old English it looks like.
MS. SLAVIK: Made of glass?
LANCE JIMENEZ: It's a glass bottle, yes, correct.
MS. SLAVIK: What if anything was contained inside the bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Gasoline.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish 8C-129.
MS. SLAVIK: Is this the photo you were referring to, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. We always do like a close up once we collect it.
MS. SLAVIK: And what brand of malt liquor is this?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Old English 800.
MS. SLAVIK: Does this photo more clearly show the liquid inside the glass bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you smell the liquid?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: What did it smell like?
LANCE JIMENEZ: What I knew to be gasoline.
MS. SLAVIK: And what conclusion did you reach about the purpose of this glass bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That it was a -- used for a Molotov cocktail.
MS. SLAVIK: You can take this down, Ms. Foster. And could you please publish Government Exhibit 8C-131.
MS. SLAVIK: What is this?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That's where we take some of the fluid out of the bottle and we have it tested for analysis and collected as evidence.
MS. SLAVIK: Was this particular container recovered at the scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We provide that container, but we put the fluid inside it.
MS. SLAVIK: And what is the purpose of that, of putting the fluid in that container?
LANCE JIMENEZ: To preserve it and we tag it. We seal it, and we mark it for evidence.
MS. SLAVIK: Ms. Foster, could you please publish Government Exhibit 8C-132 and 135 side by side.
MS. SLAVIK: What is depicted here, Investigator Jiminez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: You'll see the fire extinguishers I was referring to and then the disposable item that we observed on the -- adjacent to the Porsche.
MS. SLAVIK: And does the photo on the left, Government Exhibit 8C-132, does that depict the location of the lighter where it was actually found on the scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: You can take this down, Ms. Foster. Could you please publish Government Exhibit 8C-138.
MS. SLAVIK: What is this photo, Investigator Jimenez?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That's the cloth material that I believe was attempted to be stuffed inside the bottle.
MS. SLAVIK: Can you describe the cloth material for the jury?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. It's what appeared to be some kind of designer-type handkerchief.
MS. SLAVIK: What led you to believe it was designer?
LANCE JIMENEZ: If you'll see in the corner of that material that didn't burn, it had some kind of like fancy lines, like a -- and it just had like a silky type material to it.
MS. SLAVIK: You can take this down, Ms. Foster. Thank you.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, after reviewing the evidence that we've just looked at, what if any conclusion did you reach as to the cause and origin of this auto fire?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I made the determination that somebody had taken that bottle, put gasoline inside it, stuffed that cloth inside it, lit the cloth, cut the roof of the vehicle, dropped it down inside. I believe that the cloth had fell out, burned, smoldered, and then the liquid splashed. And the bottle never broke obviously, and then the fire just kind of self-contained inside the vehicle causing damage, burn damage. And the origin was there on the seat, the driver's seat that caused the most damage where the bottle had eventually landed.
MS. SLAVIK: What if anything did you conclude about whether this was a random act?
LANCE JIMENEZ: In my opinion, it was targeted for where the car was located. This car was not easily visible from the street. The car was not -- there was several car -- another car in the driveway that didn't get targeted. So I believe the Porsche was targeted closer to the home.
It's also an area that you don't see too much activity or crime and activity or homeless activity. And my experience is something in that neighborhood, something like that where the vehicle was located, I personally felt it was targeted.
MS. SLAVIK: So you just described the investigation that you conducted at the scene. I want to talk about the additional investigative steps that you took starting with testing the evidence that we just talked about.
So, first, did you request that any of the items that we just saw were tested for DNA?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Which items?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That would be one, three, and four, which would be the bottle, the cloth material, and the lighter.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you personally collect or swab these items for DNA?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did not.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you personally perform the DNA testing or analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did not.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you receive any results with respect to the DNA testing or analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Nothing came back on item three and four, and I believe there was DNA hit on the bottle.
MS. SLAVIK: Which --
LANCE JIMENEZ: Item number one.
MS. SLAVIK: Items three and four, that was the cloth?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Lighter and the cloth.
MS. SLAVIK: And just to be clear, have you received any training with respect to interpretation of DNA testing?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I have not.
MS. SLAVIK: You said that DNA was recovered from the glass bottle; is that right?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. I was informed that there was a partial DNA.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you know where on the glass bottle the DNA was found?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I do not.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you know what areas of the bottle were swabbed for DNA?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I do not.
MS. SLAVIK: And you said that you are aware that there was a partial DNA profile recovered from the bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That's what the report informed me, yes.
MS. SLAVIK: And are you aware that the partial DNA profile was consistent with a female contributor?
LANCE JIMENEZ: That's what it was -- I was told, yes.
MS. SLAVIK: So, first of all, do you know what that means that a partial profile was consistent with a female contributor?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Unfortunately, I do not know what that means.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you know if any additional DNA was found on the bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I don't believe so.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you know whether the presence of one DNA profile means that only one person touched the bottle?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No. I don't know that.
MS. SLAVIK: Do you know whether it's possible to touch an object but not leave detectable DNA?
MR. AGNIFILO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jimenez, in your experience, is DNA found commonly at arson scenes?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Unfortunately, throughout my career, I've requested DNA a lot, and I have had very few hits with DNA.
MS. SLAVIK: Focusing now on the fluid in the glass bottle. Can you remind the jury what that fluid smelled like?
LANCE JIMENEZ: It smelled like gasoline.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you submit the fluid in the bottle for testing?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We did, and that was the item number two that you saw with the can.
MS. SLAVIK: What sort of testing did you request?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Trace analysis to identify what the liquid was.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you personally perform this trace analysis?
MS. SLAVIK: Do you have any training in trace testing or analysis?
MS. SLAVIK: What was -- what were the results of that trace testing?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The report came back that it was in fact gasoline.
MS. SLAVIK: Turning now to fingerprints, did you request that fingerprints be taken in this case?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I requested -- yes. I believe one and four, maybe three, I don't recall if three was requested. But we did request fingerprints on the bottle and the lighter.
MS. SLAVIK: The bottle and the lighter you said.
Did you request fingerprinting of any other items at the crime scene?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did make a call to LAPD latent prints lab to have them come and fingerprint the vehicle itself.
MS. SLAVIK: That was the Porsche?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The Porsche, yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you personally take the fingerprints?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did not.
MS. SLAVIK: Who did?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I don't know. I wasn't present for that collection.
MS. SLAVIK: Was it someone from your unit?
MS. SLAVIK: Arson investigator?
LANCE JIMENEZ: No. It was somebody from LAPD.
MS. SLAVIK: Is that standard protocol?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes.
MS. SLAVIK: Have you received any training with respect to fingerprint analysis?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Not analysis, no.
MS. SLAVIK: Were fingerprints recovered from the glass bottle or the BIC lighter?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was -- I have no idea to be honest. I never received any report.
MS. SLAVIK: Were fingerprints recovered from the Porsche?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I believe there was two prints recovered. I don't know the results of that.
MS. SLAVIK: You don't know the results?
MS. SLAVIK: Did you collect any other fingerprints in this case?
LANCE JIMENEZ: There was -- the victim had informed me that they had -- he had somebody come and print his house from a previous trespass, and that person recovered two fingerprints on his glass front door, and that person put those on print cards and turned them over to me.
MS. SLAVIK: What did you do after obtaining these print cards?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The print cards were sealed in an envelope with the person's signature, and then I put them in another envelope I sealed for evidence and turned them into LAPD for a print analysis.
MS. SLAVIK: What do you mean by putting them into evidence?
LANCE JIMENEZ: We take all of our evidence we collect and we turn it over -- we book everything with LAPD's evidence unit and they -- they store and collect all the evidence, and it's properly maintained through LAPD.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you receive results related to these fingerprint cards?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did not.
MS. SLAVIK: Now, you said that you entered these fingerprint cards into evidence. Did there come a time when you learned what happened to the print cards?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Yes. Recently.
MS. SLAVIK: What happened to the print cards?
LANCE JIMENEZ: The two print cards I had turned in were destroyed.
MS. SLAVIK: When were they destroyed?
LANCE JIMENEZ: They were destroyed in August of 2012.
MS. SLAVIK: Were you aware that they had been destroyed in August of 2012?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I was not.
MS. SLAVIK: Did you authorize the print cards being destroyed?
LANCE JIMENEZ: I did not.
MS. SLAVIK: Who ordered their destruction?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Somebody within LAPD.
MS. SLAVIK: Is that typically the way that logged evidence is destroyed?
LANCE JIMENEZ: Not for evidence that I turn in. I'm the lead investigator. So everything goes through me before it's destroyed. Unless it goes through our arson section, it will come through in a request if they want it destroyed or not or returned back to the owner.
MS. SLAVIK: And the LAPD employee who authorized the destruction wasn't you, you said, right?
MS. SLAVIK: Was that person a member of your team?
MS. SLAVIK: Did this strike you as unusual?
MR. AGNIFILO: I'm going to object to all of this, Judge.
THE COURT: There was a question pending. I take it there's an objection to that question?
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MS. SLAVIK: I'll ask a different question, your Honor.
MS. SLAVIK: Investigator Jiminez, in your 15 years, approximately, as an arson investigator, has evidence been ordered destroyed by someone who was not a member of your team?
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, I object. And can we have a side bar on this?
THE COURT: You may.
(Continued on next page)
(At sidebar)
THE COURT: Do you have any more questions along these lines?
MS. SLAVIK: No, that's my last question.
THE COURT: Well, the objection to that question, which I take it there is an objection, is sustained.
MR. AGNIFILO: Well --
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, this is an item of evidence that he collected with respect to his investigation. I think he's entitled to explain to the jury what happened with respect to those evidentiary items.
THE COURT: Well, if it were going to be asked, it would need to be rephrased. The way the question was posed was whether in his 15 years of experience there's been evidence that has been destroyed by someone who is not within his chain of authority, something along those lines.
MS. SLAVIK: That's right.
THE COURT: Well, in what instances are you talking about? How would he know if evidence was destroyed, if there was never any follow up to determine whether any evidence was destroyed. And you're talking about the destruction of evidence when it's not within his chain of authority, so how would he know about that one way or another?
MS. SLAVIK: I can ask in a way that frames it within his knowledge. Understood.
THE COURT: But let me hear.
MR. AGNIFILO: There's a larger issue. There's an inference of wrongdoing here, which we are hearing for the first time. And which is utterly unfounded. They're clearly saying that something happened to cause these fingerprint cards to be destroyed suspiciously under circumstances that this witness has never seen before.
And I am asking that that this entire line be struck as being prejudicial. They're clearly suggesting that Mr. Combs, with his authority, did something to cause the destruction of these print cards. There's no other reason for these questions other than that.
THE COURT: I, for one, hearing the testimony, did not think that's where the government was going.
MR. AGNIFILO: I don't know where else --
THE COURT: Let me hear from Ms. Slavik.
MS. SLAVIK: This is with respect to his investigation. And this material was in the 3500. Investigator Jimenez only recently learned of the destruction of these fingerprint cards in this matter. He learned of the destruction as of Friday.
THE COURT: But what's the inference? What are you drying to address?
MS. SLAVIK: It goes to the completion of the investigation. I think the defense is going to get up on cross-examination and suggest that the -- there was -- it was a dead end investigation. There were no charges and there are reasons why. And this destruction of the print cards is one such reason.
MR. AGNIFILO: They could have left it at that. That's clearly not what they're doing. What they're clearly doing is saying in addition. They could have just said where are the print cards, they're destroyed. They didn't have to go further and say have you ever heard of this before, did you authorize it. That is clearly improper. And that's what they're doing.
They are putting in front of this jury that there was wrongdoing in the LAPD. And the only reason that would be relevant, since this is not an LAPD internal investigation, is that someone in this courtroom had something to do with it, and that someone is Mr. Combs.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Hold on. Again, that's not how I would have taken it. I understood the questions as they were coming in as drawing the sting from potential cross-examination that would show that the destruction of the fingerprint cards is reason to question the entirety of the investigation to the arson incident, and I assume that that's what Ms. Slavik was doing, was trying to -- anticipating that you are going to get up and say what are you talking about, you lost evidence that would show -- possibly point to someone else as having done this and just mysteriously vanished before trial.
MR. AGNIFILO: Then she should have waited for me to do that. And the last question is improper along those same lines.
THE COURT: The last question is going to be rephrased.
MS. SHAPIRO: That was the only reason they asked the last question. There's no other legitimate reason consistent with their explanation.
MR. AGNIFILO: It shows the motive all along. The motive -- first of all, I wasn't going to bring up the print cards.
THE COURT: You can. I don't think you're going to hear anything in response because there's nothing to elicit.
MR. AGNIFILO: But then they should have done this on redirect. They did this not for that reason. They did this to suggest something improper happened.
And it's not just an LAPD matter because they wouldn't have asked all the other questions. In 15 years have you ever heard of -- it's suspicious. They're making it suspicious.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, we discussed this yesterday. With the defense raising the DNA testing issue with the testing results coming into play and defense going to call into question the investigation and the lack of charges in this crime. I think, as I flagged for the Court we plan to --
THE COURT: It was not flagged for the Court, so.
MS. SLAVIK: I remember flagging for the Court that the government will ask questions relating to the DNA testing, the gas testing, and the fingerprint testing.
THE COURT: Yes. Those questions were asked and there were no objections that were raised. This is a separate issue as I'm understanding.
MR. AGNIFILO: This is a separate issue.
MS. SLAVIK: I think we're entitled to draw this --
THE COURT: Well, do you have any further questions other than this line?
MS. SLAVIK: No -- well, yes, I have further questions, but not related to this line of inquiry.
MR. AGNIFILO: My request is that all of the questions and answers in regard to this witness being asked, in 15 years you've never heard such a thing, you didn't authorize this to be done --
THE COURT: Fifteen years thing hasn't been answered.
MR. AGNIFILO: Okay. That you didn't authorize this to be done.
MS. SLAVIK: I think he's absolutely entitled --
MR. AGNIFILO: My request is that it be stricken.
THE COURT: I need a second to look at the transcript.
(Continued on next page)
(In open court; jury present)
THE COURT: For the jury, give us one second to sync up our technology here.
Since we've been going for a while, why don't we take a restroom recess. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it so people aren't just pulling their heels here. We will be back in ten minutes. Thank you. All rise.
(Continued on next page)