Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness?

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from--I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very well-known case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings.

And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's.

"In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.--I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable."

Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze.

Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well.

MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying.

But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available.

THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point?

MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week.

THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here.

MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18.

(Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with that, I think I'm going to take leave of the Court.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury g morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: All right. The Defense may call their next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the Defense calls Dr. Fredric Rieders.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

Fredric Rieders, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

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

DR. RIEDERS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

DR. RIEDERS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, doctor. Could you state and spell your name, sir.

DR. RIEDERS: My name is Fredric, F-R-E-D-R-I-C, Rieders, R-I-E-D-E-R-S.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, when and where were you born?

DR. RIEDERS: I was born in 1922 in Vienna, Austria.

MR. BLASIER: What is your occupation?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm a forensic toxicologist and director of a toxicology laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us what toxicology is?

DR. RIEDERS: Toxicology is the study of chemical substances and of presumably biological systems in terms of focusing on the harmful effects that the chemicals can produce in the biological system. Simplified version, toxicology is the study of poisoning, and I deliberately say poisoning in quotes, rather than poison, because everything is a poison in too large a quantity. The definition of a poison is that it is too much.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you please tell us about your educational background.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Doctor, would you pull the microphone down, please.

DR. RIEDERS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: There we go. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Blasier.

DR. RIEDERS: I studied--my undergraduate studies were at New York University's Washington Square College, at Columbia University, at the University of Indiana in Bloomington, at Houston University and a little bit on courses while I was in service overseas by correspondence from the University of Wisconsin. I received a bachelor's of arts degree from New York University's Washington Square College in New York in 1948. My major subject was chemistry. My minor subject was biology. I then went on towards--I went to a master of science degree in chemistry in which I specialized in toxicological analysis chemistry, in the analysis that is used at that time, essentially in autopsy specimens. After I received a master's degree and became eligible to be a doctoral candidate at New York University, I was offered a special fellowship at the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, which is part of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in their school of graduate studies, not towards an MD degree, but towards a doctoral, Ph.D. degree. And there during the following, oh, two years of work and one year of this, that and the other thing, I received the degree of doctor of philosophy, not medicine, Ph.D. degree, my major subject was pharmacology, toxicology; pharmacology being the study of the effects of chemical substances from no effect to through toxicology to a lethal effect, as well as what the body does to the chemicals as it is in toxicology. And my minor subjects were pathology, the study of disease and physiology, the study of the function of organisms, essentially the functions of the human organism of man. That was my formal education. Of course I did research and presented a thesis on the toxicology of a substance called acrylonitrile and I was granted a degree in 1952.

THE COURT: Spell acrylonitrile for the court reporter, please.

DR. RIEDERS: Sir?

THE COURT: Can you spell acrylo--

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. A-c-r-y-l-o-n-I-t-r-i-l-e.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe your other academic experience and affiliations.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. While I was a graduate student at Jefferson, I was also a graduate assistant and I did laboratory demonstrations in toxicology for the medical students. I did work for the clinic because I had some techniques from my previous work experience in EDTA determination in blood and other toxicological analyses, which were very rare at the time, not many had them, so assisted in this sort of thing. I also participated in other research besides my own doctoral research. After I received the degree, I was appointed an instructor in the department of pharmacology and in industrial medicine as an assistant instructor and I taught medical students, second year medical students, toxicology, both in the laboratory and at lecture. I worked with graduate--other graduate students and I conducted research in various areas of pharmacology and toxicology. And I lectured, of course, as I mentioned. This went on until 1956, at which time I had been promoted to assistant professor and had done research in pharmacology, toxicology and industrial medicine, and that, incidentally, included a lot of research with EDTA at the time, which had just come into use for the treatment of certain types of metal poisons. In 1956 the city of Philadelphia changed from a coroner system to a medical examiner system and the first medical examiner, Dr. Joseph Spellman, asked me to apply for the position of chief toxicologist upon the recommendation of my former chief, Dr. Alexander Gettler, who is sort of a granddaddy of American toxicologists, whom I had worked for in Belleview. So I became an instructor and then I left the employ of the city. I took an examination with several other people. I scored appropriately and was selected for the position of chief toxicologist for the city of Philadelphia and director of--well, started a poisoning information center and directing it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me back up just a minute before we get into your employment history if we can. Have you told us about all of your teaching experience or academic experience with respect to professorships?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, only up until that I remained on the faculty at Jefferson. I still am. I am a full professor now. I became associate professor and a full professor in the course of time on a part-time basis, of course, and when the money crunch came, I agreed to forego my salary, which was minimal, which was a stipend, and I'm still on the faculty pro bono, which means I don't get paid for it. Now for the last few years I have not lectured to medical students, but I have worked with graduate students, continue to work with graduate students, and I am starting a whole new course where we will start lecturing in the fall and in the spring.

MR. BLASIER: Now, before we get into your employment history, could you tell us whether you have any affiliations with professional associations?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The first professional association which I joined was American Chemical Society of which I am still a full member, as well as several of its divisions, including the division on analytical chemistry. Then later on I joined several other societies that were particularly involved in pharmacology; American Association--American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. I am a full member of that.

Some local societies, which since I no longer stayed active, I dropped from, but I became a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science. I am now a fellow. In particular of the section on toxicology on forensic toxicology of which I was the--was one of the chairmen for one of the sessions some years ago and had various other official capacities in the academy since about 1958 or `59, since I have been a member there. I am a member of--and I am one of the founders, one of the charter members of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists which was formed, I think it was around 1960, at a meeting in England. I was the first editor of its bulletin, which is after finding somebody with a printing press made himself available, I ran on a Xerox machine for a couple of years. I am a member of the--well, of several other organizations. I am a member of the American Association of Forensic Toxicologists, which is called society of forensic toxicology, which is somewhat similarly composed and somewhat similar to the activities of the toxicology section of the academy of forensic science. And I am--I got certified by the American board in forensic toxicology, which is part of the academy, as a fellow, as a board certified forensic toxicologist. I am also a member of the association--American Association of Clinical Chemists. Those are the chemists who work in hospitals and in other places mainly to help in the diagnosis of disease. There is a section, an area, and it is a specialty of toxicology, of toxicological chemistry, and I am board certified in toxicological chemistry by the American Association of Clinical Chemists. I am a member of an International Association on Risk Analysis and several others, but these are my main professional background organizations.

MR. BLASIER: Now--now, could you tell us a little bit about--briefly about your employment history prior to the time that you started your own lab.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I won't trouble you with all the different jobs I had--jobs I had when I came here as an immigrant, from stevedore to glass blower to anything you could do in 1939, but my first related position developed in 1941 when I became an assistant chemist, of all things, in a soda factory in preparing flavors and doing preparatory analyses. After that I worked for another chemical company that made detergents and a variety of other things as an assistant chemist and then I went into the service.

I was in the military during world war ii as a surgical technician and then as an interpreter because of my various language skills. That was towards--the interpreter was toward the end of the war, and then for a year or so afterwards in military government. When I returned to the states I continued under the GI Bill with my college education, but after one year all I had left were some rather easy courses, so I sought employment and I received a job through the employment service as a junior toxicologist, a trainee in toxicology in the office of the chief medical examiner of the city of New York and under the chief toxicologist, under Alexander Gettler and Dr. Charles Hamburger. I was there for approximately two, two and a half years being trained there and actually performing service work, of course. I then, as I mentioned, went to Jefferson and I took you through the time that I left my full-time status as--at that time assistant professor and became chief toxicologist for the city of Philadelphia. My job at that point in time was to organize a laboratory in the division of toxicology. I was not in the medical examiner's office because the medical examiner had just been established. And also to organize and direct the poisoning information center for the city. After that, what I did is the medical examiner's office was in the health department of the city. I conducted toxicological analyses on autopsy cases for the medical examiner, assisted hospitals in the differential diagnosis of poisoning. At that time that is about the only source they had for laboratory work is to avail themselves of the medical examiner's toxicologist. I did some consultive work for a variety of city agencies and I started to train and conduct research in toxicology as well. I did that from 1956, when I became chief, and I--and I organized and directed the poisoning information center. I did that until 1970 for fourteen years and--

MR. BLASIER: Is chief--is office of the medical examiner, that is similar to what we call a coroner?

DR. RIEDERS: Very similar, yes. I--we--the operation that was here, the toxicologist that was here was a colleague of mine that I knew very well for many years, and the medical examiner--the coroner I knew very well, and I still know all the people quite well in the ME's office here. It is very similar. I think you have a coroner's medical examiner or a coroner's chief or forensic pathologist, so it adds up to the same thing. It is just politically a different issue. The medical examiner is appointed upon examination.

THE COURT: Excuse me, doctor. This is not your employment history. Ask another question, please.

MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us from 1956 to 1970, when you were with the medical examiner's office, approximately how much of your work involved working with law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it all related to law enforcement agencies. We had a weekly conference with the chief of the D.A.'s homicide division, with the chief homicide detective in the city of Philadelphia going to all the homicide cases, but the office was independent of the law enforcement agencies, is a very important part of its function, and that is to be an ombudsman in cases for the medical examiner, not the toxicologist, to determine the manner of death, whether or not criminality might be involved.

MR. BLASIER: Now, from 1970 to now what has your employment been?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, in 1970 I left the employment of the city and started an independent laboratory and consultative (Sic) company, national medical services, in which at that time I continued to do a lot of postmortem toxicology for the surrounding counties--

MR. BLASIER: I will get into the specifics of that, but how large is national medical services now?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, now it has 120 people in it. It is not my doing; that is my son's.

MR. BLASIER: And does that--does that company do business with law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, indeed.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately what percentage of the work is done for law enforcement agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: The forensic work that we do is perhaps as much as twenty percent of our work.

MR. BLASIER: Could you give me just a real rough list of some of the law enforcement agencies that you work for.

DR. RIEDERS: Well, we work for many of the police departments in the surrounding counties, for the District Attorney's office, for cases that they bring to us in the surrounding counties. We occasionally work with the police department and the courts in the city of Philadelphia, too. We are scientists, so we assist there. Well, either the courts themselves or sometimes the Defense attorneys. You know, it makes no difference.

MR. BLASIER: Do you work with--

DR. RIEDERS: We also do work for police departments at times in new jersey, in as far away--well, we have done work for the Los Angeles Police Department at one point or we may have done some more recently that I don't know of.

MR. BLASIER: Do you work--

DR. RIEDERS: So we do it for all over the country.

MR. BLASIER: Do you do work for any foreign police agencies?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Occasionally we did some work for the medical examiner and the Prosecutor in Brazil in one of the countries. Puerto Rico of course, which is part of the United States, we have done work there. We have received specimens in three criminal cases, potential criminal cases, from Australia, one of which is specifically from a police department, the other one is from a medical examiner, the third one a private party, recently.

MR. BLASIER: Does your lab do work for other labs?

DR. RIEDERS: It is--a major part of our work is reference work. That means work that large laboratories, which do a lot of clinical analysis, get and there are specialized toxicological tests and they send them to us, we are their reference lab.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give us an estimate as to how much of your work is--other labs have sent to you?

DR. RIEDERS: I can only do it for the time in which I was administratively involved in the shop, which stopped about three or four years ago, and at that time it was about thirty percent or forty percent was from reference work from other laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an ongoing working relationship with the FBI?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I don't want to mention any specific cases, but are you currently working with agent Roger Martz of the FBI on some criminal cases?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, we are looking--not actually working on them, but we are discussing how to work on them that we have, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Does that work involve detecting or developing methods to detect the presence of poisons in tissue?

DR. RIEDERS: In one case it really involved the development of methods. In the other case it will be what analysis will the FBI do or has done already and what analyses will I do because of my capabilities.

MR. BLASIER: And this--special agent Roger Martz is sitting right behind me, right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you tell us, very briefly, when you started doing work with chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I started doing work with paper chromatography, which was the first form of chromatography that came out, while I was still a graduate student, so that I was in still--let's say 1950. I started doing thin layer chromatography, which is a more modern method and used it extensively following a Gordon research conference in which I participated in 1959 or `60. Same year started working with gas chromatography; 1959, 1960. I started to work with gas chromatography coupled hyphenated--you know, the hyphenated systems with a technique called mass spectrometry, oh, in the seventies.

MR. BLASIER: Now, was that around the time when that technology actually started?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, the technology started earlier as an academic research technology, but it is around the time where they were beginning to be some bioanalytical applications for real life situations.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you done work in what's called HPLC or high pressure liquid chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Since about what time?

DR. RIEDERS: 1973--I think 1973 is when we got our first instrument after I had familiarized myself with it for sometime prior thereto and so that is about when I started to actually hands-on do a lot of work on it and then supervise a lot of work.

MR. BLASIER: Do you currently in your lab do mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, yes, we do.

MR. BLASIER: And how many--how many instruments do you have that do mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Seven or eight.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we will get into the details of what that is in a second, but have you done what's called tandem mass spectrometry?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

DR. RIEDERS: A few times, hands-on only.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

DR. RIEDERS: Again, that is a relatively new not commonly available technique, in toxicology labs at least.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us briefly what is EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, EDTA is the name of a chemical substance which in full is called ethylenediamineacetic, e-T-H-Y-L-E-N-E, diamine, D-I-A-M-I-N-E, acetic, A-C-E-T-I-C, acid. Ethylenediamineacetic acid.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we put up slide no. 1 in my--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: This will be the 1257 series. This will be 1257-A.

(Deft's 1257-A for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, can you see the monitor right there to your right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that what EDTA is, what you just spelled?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Could you tell us what a purple or lavender-topped tube is?

DR. RIEDERS: That name is in medicine and in laboratory medicine or anyone who uses human blood for testing, the name for an evacuate tube which has a stopper that is--some call it lavender, some call it purple in color, and that makes you recognize it clearly as a tube which has EDTA in it.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to have a photograph marked as next in order.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: 1258.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 1258 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: I would like to have this put on the elmo, please.

THE COURT: This is a photo of tubes?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: 1258, Mrs. Robertson, a photo of tubes.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you look at your monitor and tell us if that appears to be purple-topped tubes?

DR. RIEDERS: That is the typical appearance of the purple-topped tubes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the relationship between EDTA and a purple-topped tube?

DR. RIEDERS: EDTA, either a potassium or a sodium salt, is put into the purple-topped tubes which have a vacuum in them so that when blood is drawn and mixed with them that that blood won't coagulate. That is the sole purpose. It has some preservative purposes for certain types of cells and other things, but what the EDTA does, the EDTA is what is called in English a claw compound like a lobster's claw, a chelating agent. And what the excess of EDTA does that is in the tube is combine with all of the calcium in the blood and tie it up. Without calcium blood won't clot. If you don't do that, then the blood will clot in five, seven minutes, you know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you had experience in your background working with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Great deal, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately when did do you your first work with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: In the early fifties.

MR. BLASIER: Just briefly, what was the nature of that work?

DR. RIEDERS: The first thing that I became involved in is to study its properties as to whether or not it could be used for treating acute lead poisoning in small children who were at the Jefferson hospital and then in working with one of the physicians in administering and designing doses, administering, collecting blood in urine and measuring the EDTA that is coming out of the child. Then this was expanded to working with it in occupational employment cases where people are exposed to lead, battery workers and others, both in treating this kind of lead poisoning which is different from what is in children, but also we developed a diagnostic test for somebody to determine whether or not someone had an excessive body burn of lead and therefore should be treated even before they got really sick. So all that was published work and then I did a substantial amount of test-tube work with EDTA and also experimental work with animals. I also did experimental work, or rather studies, it wasn't really experimental, it was clinical work, in determining how EDTA mobilizes and causes the excretion of other elements besides lead, again with published work for copper, for zinc, for a number of other metals that EDTA can chelate. In the process--well, there was the biological work. The invitro work was measuring the strength of the way that EDTA holds onto metals, how easily will it rip it away from some part of the body, how it will redistribute the lead and whether it is absorbed, fed in animals; not in man. I did not need--we did not need any people because we came to the conclusion that oral EDTA can only do harm rather than good to people of metal poisoning.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you have--some of that work involved analyzing biological samples for the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Some of it did, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Starting about when?

DR. RIEDERS: I made some attempts at analysis of EDTA as early as 1954 or `55. They were successful for qualitative tests in urine but not for anything test. They were color tests of a sort. I did a lot of tests--not a lot--some testing for EDTA while I was toxicologist for the city because every so often I would receive a blood specimen and I needed to know what was the preservative, and the pathologists couldn't help me, didn't remember whether he had dumped this blood from a reagent from a lavender-topped tube or from a gray-topped--a gray-topped tube has fluoride and oxylate in it--or whether he didn't put anything in it. After death blood stays fairly liquid, it clots, but then it liquefies again, so you can't really tell. If you get a tube of clotted blood, you know that is blood that has not been preserved with anything usually. That is why it clots quickly.

MR. BLASIER: Have you worked on chromatography techniques to detect the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. That came later.

MR. BLASIER: That started about when?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, I did--started to do some of that around 1976 or `77, but it isn't for detecting EDTA at ultra trace levels. It is to determine whether a blood specimen is an EDTA specimen, has a lot of EDTA in it, or whether it is a fluoride oxylate specimen, whether it has been preserved with that. More recently I am able to determine whether heparin was used. I couldn't do that until recently.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, I didn't ask you about your publications before. Have you published articles and made presentations in your area of expertise?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many?

DR. RIEDERS: Over a hundred.

MR. BLASIER: And do you know approximately how many of those--how many of your articles are in peer review journals?

DR. RIEDERS: Are what?

MR. BLASIER: How many of your articles appeared in peer review journals?

DR. RIEDERS: I would say well over half.

MR. BLASIER: And did some of those articles include articles about EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many?

DR. RIEDERS: A dozen or so.

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you asked to review results of a study performed by the FBI to determine whether there was EDTA present on bloodstains found on a pair of socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom and from a bloodstain found on the back gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's condo?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And have you examined test results produced by the FBI on those questions?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you also examined a validation study that the FBI performed in February of this year?

DR. RIEDERS: To the extent to which they were submitted, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, at one point were you consulted by the Los Angeles Police Department during the course of this case about methods to detect EDTA in bloodstains?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember who that was?

DR. RIEDERS: Mr. Henkhaus, H-E-N-K-H-A-U-S.

MR. BLASIER: And did you provide him with some materials to assist them in developing a method to detect EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an opinion as to whether the method used by the FBI to detect the presence of EDTA in bloodstains is a valid method for detecting the presence of EDTA in blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, the method is valid. It is capable of detecting EDTA, of identifying it, of measuring it. Even if not the way it is done, the measurement, you can't really make any quantitative measurements too readily.

MR. BLASIER: In terms of determining whether it is there or not?

DR. RIEDERS: Whether it is there and whether it is there in a range, a very wide range of amounts.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when we talk about parts, do we use the term parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: No, that is concentration.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Tell us briefly what is--when you use the term "Parts per million," what does that mean?

DR. RIEDERS: It means one part, in the case of EDTA, in a million parts of blood. This would mean, for instance, one microgram per milliliter which is one gram or a million micrograms of blood. That is one part per million.

MR. BLASIER: Did the method developed by the FBI that you reviewed, in your opinion is it capable of detecting amounts of EDTA in blood in the parts per million range?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah. In the range of maybe ten parts per million and higher, perhaps somewhat less than that. Perhaps five parts per million and higher.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is parts per billion one thousandth of parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: It is one billion and a billion is a thousand million.

MR. BLASIER: If you are relating parts per million to parts per billion, you are talking about 1000 as much of something?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. There are a thousand parts per million in one part--I mean there are a thousand parts per billion in one part per million. They are the same. A thousand parts per billion or one part per million.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, I want to ask you some questions about EDTA and what characteristics the FBI was looking for. Could we have slide C.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: 1257-C.

(Deft's 1257-C for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, do chemical compounds like EDTA have what is called a molecular weight?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure.

MR. BLASIER: And is this--this isn't in pounds or ounces, is it?

DR. RIEDERS: It is in units. The molecular weight is how many hydrogen atoms you can cram into a molecule to get the same weight. That is the unit. The weight of hydrogen is nominally one. So something that weighs--has a molecular weight of 200--292, as we have here, and 292 is the molecular weight, is as big, weighs as much as 292 hydrogen atoms.

MR. BLASIER: So what is the molecular weight of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: 292.

MR. BLASIER: And I assume different compounds have different molecular weights?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. There are other compounds with 292 weight, but they are not terribly many.

MR. BLASIER: Is 292 a relatively high molecular weight?

DR. RIEDERS: Relatively high, yes. As you go higher, fewer and fewer compounds will have exactly the same weight.

MR. BLASIER: Now, looking at the chart on the screen, the chart indicates adding a proton to 292, gives you a--gives you what?

DR. RIEDERS: 293.

MR. BLASIER: And--

DR. RIEDERS: The proton is the same as a hydrogen atom with a charge on it, positive charge of hydrogen atom.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the--why do you need to have a charge on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you need a charge on an atom in order for the principle of mass spectrometry to measure it. The mass spectrometer measures charged atoms, you know, measures the charges. And what it does, it gives you a number which is the ratio of the mass, the molecular weight over the charge. In this case it would be 293 over 1, so that the ion that you then have, which is EDTA with a positive charge hooked on its head, is--has a weight of 293, and the charge--that is the mass, 293. The charge is called z, like zebra, over 1, so it is 293.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that if you were looking for EDTA in a substance, one of the things would you look for is whether you had something that weighed 293?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that called, 293?

DR. RIEDERS: That is called the parent ion. It is the molecular--it is the whole molecule plus a charge on it, so it is an ion. The whole molecule doesn't have a charge on it, but it gets a charge on it and it is called a parent ion because from it can come fragments.

MR. BLASIER: Now do we have the next slide, slide D.

(Deft's 1257-D for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, please look at your monitor, and the bottom part of that diagram now indicates that the parent ion is broken into pieces; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is the function of the mass spectrometer. The first thing it does, it weighs the ions that--it weighs the molecule. The molecule, in order to be weighed, has to have a charge so it adds a proton and then weighs it, so it gets 293, which is the molecule plus one. The molecule, remember, is 293. Then it breaks that molecule into pieces, but not the way that you break a bottle of beer, but the way that a jeweler cuts a diamond. It breaks it along certain planes and not others so that the pieces that result are somewhat predictable from the structure of the compound. If you apply energy to it, it will break up into certain kind of pieces. Now, what it does, it weighs the pieces to see what weight do they have. In this case one of the pieces, one of the daughters, you might say, of that 292 after it was broken up, has a weight of 160 so that you now have--you have two identifying characteristics. You have--there is a substantial amount among all of the ions of the 293, enough so you can weigh it, and there is enough of the break-up product, 160, so you can weigh that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to talk a little bit about chromatograph. Could we have slide F.

(Brief pause.)

(Deft's 1257-F for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the last side was 1257-D.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: This is 1257-F.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the process that was used by the FBI in this case involved a step called chromatography and then a step called mass spectrometry, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, chromatography, could you describe briefly, looking at the chart up there, what is the principle of chromatography?

DR. RIEDERS: The principle of chromatography is the separation of compounds that are mixed together by having them go for a walk, so it is characteristic--for instance, you take a group of people, a whole bunch of people, and you say now I want you to walk from here to a mile from here as fast as you can. You all start at the same point. Gradually over that mile it spreads out until the EDTA person is somewhere there and all the others are also spread out. Good chromatography separates a mixture into all of its components, or all of the components that you are interested in at least, and then at the end of the mile there is someone with a camera who takes a picture of the person coming through the end gate and determines how long it took from here to the mile from here, and says that is the retention time. That is how long that person was retained on the road to the goal.

MR. BLASIER: Let me go to the next slide and see if we can illustrate that, which will be G.

(Peo's 1257-G for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, in my example I have used a red square as an EDTA compound molecule and two other ones, one green and one yellow. The column that is indicated on the diagram, what is that?

DR. RIEDERS: That is actually a glass or a metal column which is filled with a material that the person can lean on, so to speak, if you make it parallel to this, so that there are things along the mileway where you can stop and lean on, if you want to, for a little before you go on. What is driving the material through that column is a liquid. In this case, in the illustrating case of people moving as fast as they can, the drive is more inward, you know, if you want to win or you just want to make it to the other end, but what is moving you is your muscles to gravitate and some people lean longer and others lean less long and so they start spreading out. So the column is packed with a material and it is--the mixture is pushed through the column with a liquid. That is a steady rate. As the mixture goes through the column, it leaps on and releases from the column the different compounds different number of times, so that again by the end of the column they have separated from each other. In this case the EDTA is the slowest that I have here. It is the last one out of the column. Other things before it came out before.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the diagram, I have a clock at the top and a clock at the bottom. Is that to represent the amount of time it takes the EDTA to get from the start, go through the column and come out the other end?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is the stopwatch and what it measures is the retention time.

MR. BLASIER: And is that one of the things that you look at to determine whether you have EDTA in a substance?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. In a good system you can repeat that. You can take another sample of the mixture and throw it on the column and push it through and the retention time is going to be pretty much the same, close to it, within what you allow as experimental error. It won't be the same to ten decimals in time but it should be close enough so that you can say, well, when I see something coming up at that time, I better think of EDTA, and that--you know, that is what EDTA does, so it could be EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

DR. RIEDERS: It is consistent with it.

MR. BLASIER: --the--can you also put known EDTA into the system to see how much time it takes to get through so you have some sort of a benchmark to--

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you start out with known EDTA just to determine its retention time, but since from day-to-day and actually from run to run you can see differences, what you like to use is another substance, which you also put in yourself at the same time, which also has a known retention time, but more importantly, is closely enough related to the EDTA so that if there is going to be a change in retention time for the EDTA, there will be a similar shift for your--for your known substance that is called an internal standard.

So now instead of saying it took two minutes for the EDTA to come out, you say it took twice as long as it does for the--for the control substance, for the internal standard, which took one minute. The next time maybe you really have a very different column and it takes three minutes for the EDTA to come out, it will take one and a half minutes for the internal standard, so the ratio will remain the same. It is a very important part of reproducing your value as closely as you can.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. We will talk more about that in a few minutes, but now the technique that was used by the FBI is called liquid chromatography, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: And does that mean that it is a liquid that they push through the column that might have had EDTA in it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: The next stage is the mass spectrometry stage, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, actually the next stage is getting it from the end of the column to the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: To be put through the mass spectrometer does it have to be a liquid or a gas?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it has to be either particles that are so fine that they are virtually no bigger than gas molecules or that they can move or it has to be a gas.

MR. BLASIER: And now using liquid chromatography, if it comes out at a liquid, how do they get it to a gas or to a small misting particle?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, originally what I--originally what you did is you watched the liquid chromatograph and the detector when the peak started to come out--you know, when one of the molecules or of course a lot of it, because you put in not just one molecule of each but whatever came out, you caught it in a net in a fraction collector and then you took that fraction and then you put it into a tiny glass vial and evaporated off the liquid part of it so that you have a solid in it. Then what you did is you shoved that vial into the mass spectrometer and you heated it up until the material in the little vial on the probe evaporated, formed a gas, and then it could react in the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: What technique did the FBI us?

DR. RIEDERS: The FBI used a method where the liquid goes into a very tiny, tiny, but moderately long piece of glass capillary. It has a tiny--it is a glass tube with a tiny, tiny opening and a tiny run. That is heated and has applied to it a very high, very high voltage and a moderate amount percentage, a high electricity. That is why it is called electrospray. At the same time a gas passes over it, a sheeting gas and a separating gas, and what happens is that the liquid at the end of the capillary is sprayed out and in minuscule form and dry form, the water is removed by the sheeting gas, goes into the mass spectrometer, so it is one way and it is the most recent ways and one of the most efficient ways of getting the sample in there. Before that you turned it into a gas in a chamber and then you put the gas out through a small opening which was partly opened to the open air, so that much of it--much of the carrier gas would go out into the area and the stream of vapor of the molecules that you wanted would go in and that is a much less efficient way of transferring from the column to the mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: As the electrospray process, does it change any of the ions?

DR. RIEDERS: No, it doesn't. If it changed the ions, then you basically wouldn't know where you stand.

MR. BLASIER: Now, electrospray, do you use that technique in your lab?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: And is that a fairly expensive piece of equipment to use?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, yes, of course all equipment is expensive. All of this type of equipment is expensive, but it is of relatively recent origin. It is the host up-to-date transfer of molecules in the Hewlett Packard instrument. And as a commercial laboratory we have to wait until something has proven itself before we put out three quarters of a million dollars, so we are not the first ones but also not the last ones to get in and in time we will now,

MR. BLASIER: I would like to move to slide I and get into the mass spectrometry part of this process.

(Deft's 1257-I for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, does the mass spectrometer have a way of looking to see whether the 293 part ion is there?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how does it--just very briefly how does it do that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically what the mass spectrometer is, is a--is a piece of equipment, which to characterize it, weighs the particles that are in there, sorts them out into groups, into 293's and others, and then measures--weighs how many of those particles are there, what is the intensity of that ion. Then that is a regular mass spectrometer, single-stage mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the kind of testing that was done here is a filtering system set up so that only 293 part ions get through?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, then in this case, what you do is you set up a filter and you set it so that only the 293 will get through. That is done both in terms of the mass, but also in terms of charge, and such a filter works quite nicely, so you isolate from the others the 293 ion. Now, what you can do is put it on a detector and say it is present period or you can put it into a second mass spectrometer, but in fairly pure form. You just have 293 moleculars. All the other stuff that is in there is not going with you.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let me put up slide J.

(Peo's 1257-J for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that an indication of--just in chart form, of the parent ion getting through the filter and other ions not getting through?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. That is what a filter does. It keeps the other particles out and the 293's go into the next place which is either a detector which says I'm seeing things and the filter is taking out everything except the 293, so what I'm saying is 293.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have chart K.

(Deft's 1257-K for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, is there a second step in order to look for the daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

DR. RIEDERS: Instead of going to a detector only it goes--it is detected but it also is then put into another mass spectrometer by the system, then that mass spectrometer again breaks the 293 the way a jeweler breaks a piece of a diamond. It starts out with a ten karat, he breaks it down to three, two, et cetera, then takes one of the three karats and cuts that further.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide l, please.

(Deft's 1257-L for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, does this chart indicate what happens when it passes through the second filter, it is broken and then the 160 daughter ion is measured?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. Again, there is a filter which focuses, it is a focusing mechanism which filters out other things and pushes them aside and looks for 160 masses. Those 160 masses I gathered together and one by one they hit a detector, so the detector says I see things, I see things, I see things, and they are 160 because the others have been filtered out.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we go to slide m, please.

(Deft's 1257-M for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: So if you were trying to determine whether EDTA was present in a substance, what are the three things that you would look for with this kind of testing?

DR. RIEDERS: The first thing that you look for is if I extract something with water and put it through my column that I am using in this experiment the way I have tested EDTA and found that it comes out in five, six minutes or whatever, will I see--will something come out at six minutes? That is the retention time, or whatever the retention time is. Then what I will do is to have a mass spectrometer look at what comes out at that retention time and tell me whether I will focus on the 293, whether there is any 293, which is also a characteristic of EDTA, so the retention time is one characteristic. The 293 that I am looking at, that means I am only looking for orange-eyed people you might say. If I see orange-eyed people, I count them; others I don't count. I take all the orange-eyed people after I have counted them and throw them in the next mass spectrometer and it breaks them up and only leaves the orange eyes which eight--weigh 160 let's say.

MR. BLASIER: So we are looking for those three things?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, retention time--no. We look for more than that. We look for water solubility because that is how we got it. We look for it going through the column at all because a lot of things don't go through that column. And also that if it does go through the column, that it takes it as much time and no more and no less than the window that I know will contain EDTA, so that is really in a sense the third parameter. Then comes the--does it contain enough molecular ions, 293 masses, you know, are they enough guys in there with--or gals--with 293 on their shirts so that I can actually count them, because if it is less than a certain number I can't really count them so can I see them? Are they there in any other detection--we know my detection limit? Then after breaking those up, the third parameter is the pieces that have 160 tattooed on them and that is what we are looking for, so that we have essentially five parameters.

MR. BLASIER: Did you want to take a break?

THE COURT: Five minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Now, also one of the other things that is measured in this system is what's called ion count?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that is--is that essentially counting the number of ions that are getting through to the 160 stage there?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it is counting the number of ions that the detector can see and see--where it can separate the counts, one from the ion, where he can really count, one, two, three, four, and that means that the detector has to snap at an ion and record it before the next ion gets there, otherwise it will record two as one, so it depends open how quickly it is scanning what is coming in. And if it scans a thousand times a second, it is not going to miss many particles, many 293's, but if it scans it 50 times a second, then it will count 10 as one, you know, like a bunch. So--but that is what it does. It gives you a measure of the amount of that particular 293 or 160 that has come into the mass spectrometer, has been ionized in the first one seen and counted as 293 ions, and then the second one, how many did the detector--how many counts did the detector make.

MR. BLASIER: Now, can we go to the next slide, please, slide N.

(Deft's 1257-N for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: In the testing done by the FBI, did you review material indicating that they had tested a swatch from the back gate representing stain no. 117?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what number did the FBI assign to that stain that swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: I would have to see the numbering system. I think I have it here. May I refresh my memory?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

DR. RIEDERS: (Witness complies.) Okay. From the back gate? Umm, they gave--they gave that the number Q204, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the sock stain, is it your understanding that the sock stain that was examined was a cutting from the edge of a large stain on the sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what number was that given?

DR. RIEDERS: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Was that given number Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, Q206.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could we switch to slide p, please.

(Deft's 1257-P for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Well, is it your understanding that--well, there we go--on slide p, what is your understanding from the paperwork prepared by the FBI as to where Q206 came from on the sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Q206 was cut from the edge of a stain.

MR. BLASIER: Could you look at the monitor. Does that appear to be a chart showing the approximate location of that cutting?

DR. RIEDERS: It is similar to what I had on a piece of paper, yes. It is a good reputation.

MR. BLASIER: And the green area is represented--that is a large cut-out on the sock, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That was presumably already there and Q206 was a cutting taken from the edge--

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: --of that large a cutting? Was there also a swatch submitted that had been taken from the large swatch that had been cut that was called Q207?

DR. RIEDERS: You mean that was taken from the swatch that didn't have the stain on it?

MR. BLASIER: No, that was taken presumably from the large cut-out piece and sent to the FBI along with the sock or are you aware of that?

DR. RIEDERS: The 207?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: I don't think--I don't think so. I don't see it in my papers here, the Q207. It may be. I would have to look through the pile. You know, it is a big pile and it wasn't submitted in a good order, so I would have to look through the whole thing, but I don't recall it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you this: Did you see any testing done using the method that we have described looking for the 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion on any sock stain other than Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will stand in recess for about 15. Dr. Rieders, you can step down. Come back in fifteen minutes, please.

DR. RIEDERS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present with his counsel. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. That Dr. Fredric Rieders is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, what is a chromatogram?

DR. RIEDERS: A chromatogram is a depiction of what at various times is seen by a detector looking at the end of the column where in this case the liquid comes out and where the liquid itself does not elicit a signal from the detector, but anything that comes out that is not moving liquid, that is not the air stream, that is one of the people, anything that is one of the people walking down the road a mile, comes out, it detects or shows its presence and some measure of how much of it, how many molecules or how high--how large an amount, not concentration, but how large an amount is passing in front of the detector. And depicts that by a peak along the line and every time something comes out there is another peak, if it is seen by the detector.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could I have marked as a group exhibit 2 diagrams, two chromatograms?

THE COURT: 1259.

MR. BLASIER: 1259-A and B.

(Deft's 1259-A and 1259-B for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: For the record, 1259-A has D.A. discovery no. 4088 and is a chromatogram on sample Q206. 1259-B is D.A. discovery no. 4094 and is also a chromatogram of Q206.

THE COURT: All right. Q206. Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, let me show you 1259-A and B. Can you tell me if those are chromatograms?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I would like to--we scanned those and could we have 4088.

DR. RIEDERS: Sir?

MR. BLASIER: We are going to show you something on the monitor, doctor. Doctor, could you look at the monitor and compare what is up there with 4088 that you have in your hand, and other than one being a positive and one being a negative do they appear to be the same?

DR. RIEDERS: Looks like--looks like it is. What is on the monitor is from that same chromatogram.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that is a chromatogram produced by the FBI on the sock stain, correct, the Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: That is correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about just a couple of things on this form. I'm going to zoom in a little bit up in this corner, try to here anyway. What does the 160 up in that corner there where the arrow is indicate?

DR. RIEDERS: 160? Where is that? In the upper right corner?

MR. BLASIER: The upper left.

DR. RIEDERS: Upper left, I'm sorry. Okay. I see, on the chromatogram itself. It means that what is being monitored by the detecting device is the daughter ion, 160 that has been isolated in the second mass spectrometer and filtered and now filtered and isolated from the other ions and is now impacting on the detector as the liquid is flowing out of the column being transformed into the electrospray, entering the first mass spectrometer and going into the next one where it is converted into a daughter ion so that means that is the ion that is being monitored.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what does that tell you about whether the parent ion--what does that tell you about the 293 parent ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that in and of itself only tells me that one of the daughter ions of whatever it was, that went into the second mass spectrometer and which was the 293 daughter ion, broke up and gave off one piece that is a 160.

MR. BLASIER: So we know that this had to have come from the 293 parent ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me go up a little bit where this peak in the chart is. Can you tell me what the number 37 means?

DR. RIEDERS: The no. 37 is the--you see a line on the bottom. What it does, it counts the number of--the scans that go on. This is scan no. 37 that the detector scans the gas as it comes past, and on the 37th pass it has this particular peak.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that--

DR. RIEDERS: So that is the retention time of the substance, in terms of number of scans, rather than minutes, but it is the same thing. It is along a movement axis. The liquid flows past and the earliest things are on the right and the current, the latest things, are on the left.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the other two numbers right below the 37, what do those mean?

DR. RIEDERS: The first of these is the detector took in the signals that it got and it added them all up and it measured how big--how high a peak was generated from it in counting units, and the height of that peak was 24 through 223 counting units. The next line, what it does, it makes measurements of all the points in that peak that it can and gives you an area of that peak, because as you can see, that peak has a height and it has an area. You can see it right on there. And the area is 98,443 counts. In short, the area in counts is four times--takes four times--roughly four times as many counts to cover the area than to cover the height.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does the size of the peak--let me withdraw that. How does the machine know where to draw a triangle? Does that depend on what the operator tells it to do?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it can be that the operator says I want you to count everything that is between a certain space or it can be termed to select that, pick two points that are on a line of where this substance is coming to, because you know, walking past a detector, you don't move past it instantly, nor do all the molecules. At first fewer appear and more and more and more and less and less and less, and so you get this kind of a peak. It is the appearance, the presence and the disappearance that is shown, so you can program how wide a base you want or you can program, draw a line from a point of a certain height. You see on the left the counts are 50, a hundred, up to where the m over Z160. There are these count numbers and so these are height number really in a sense. So it says draw anything that has a height, less than what some of the noise might be, to the next point where you have that same, so you can do it in a variety of ways, but the instrument is instructed over what range to draw the line in the peak.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me--let me blow up the top of the part of the chart where it says "Mass is 158 to 1--162." What does that tell you?

DR. RIEDERS: That means that the eye of the mass spectrometer--the way that it is counting is that it will count anything that comes past it that has a 158 or a 159 or a 160 or a 161 or a 162 m over Z. If it is a high resolution instrument, then it would stop counting 158.1, 158.2, et cetera, but ordinarily it just counts these unit masses, so that anything in that range is seen by it and this way you can actually get peaks in various places. In some places in some retention times there may be some things that have a moderate amount or more of 159 than in others, 160, but that is all within the mass range in which the daughter ion sits right in the middle.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you set the machinery to just look at the 160 rather than a range from 158 to 162, are you likely to have a higher peak?

DR. RIEDERS: Yeah, because it can--I told you, it depends--the number that it gets will depend on how rapidly it is checking off. You know, I see one, I see one, I see one. If it is show than it has got two or three that it sees at the same time, then you get a lower number, a lower number of counts. If you focus just on the 160, then that same counts per minute is counting just 160's. Right now it is counting anything between 158 and 162, and so if they are stuck together, it just counts one count rather than separate counts.

MR. BLASIER: Is it the same kind of thing that you might have if I was taking a picture of you with a video camera, if I was scanning it from the Judge over to the bailiff, back and forth like this, you are going to be on the screen less time than if I just put it right on you?

DR. RIEDERS: Right. And so if you needed to sum all those pictures that were taken of me, you would have fewer pictures if it scanned than if you just sat it right on me during that time.

MR. BLASIER: And if you do an even broader scan, the peak would be equivalently less; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Less and less, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you might not even see it at some point?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: This will be 1257-Q.

(Deft's 1257-Q for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, could you take a look and tell me if the two charts that are on the screen now are the same as the two that I handed to you, 4088 and 4094?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. They are what appears to be an accurate reproduction of what I have in front of me.

MR. BLASIER: And are those two different tests that the FBI ran on Q206, the sock stain?

DR. RIEDERS: They are two separate tests it looks like on the stain.

MR. BLASIER: Could we go to R.

(Deft's 1257-R for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Now, doctor, I have highlighted the peaks on those two charts. Does the chart up on the screen there correlate to the peaks that appear on those two chromatograms?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is the retention time on those two charts consistent with the retention time that the FBI determined you would have with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do both of those charts demonstrate not only the presence of the 293 parent ion, but the 160 daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion as to whether, based on those chromatogram from the FBI, whether the presence of EDTA has been demonstrated on the bloodstain from the sock, Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Just on the basis of the 160 or the entire picture?

MR. BLASIER: The entire picture.

DR. RIEDERS: On the basis of the entire picture, this has been at these concentrations presented as strongly as it can with present technology.

MR. BLASIER: As what?

DR. RIEDERS: As EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: Now, EDTA is what's called an organic compound, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. It has carbon in it and therefore it is organic.

MR. BLASIER: Anything that has carbon in it is called an organic compound?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do we know how many there are in the universe, organic compounds?

DR. RIEDERS: No, we don't know how many organic compounds there are in the universe, obviously not, because we are discovering new ones. We are making new ones, but we are also discovering new ones everyday.

MR. BLASIER: Is it possible that there might be some other substance in the universe that gave the same pattern as we see here as EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, of course. You know, there might be anything in the universe. We don't know all the things that are in the universe, so of course there could be.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any specific compound, other than EDTA, that has 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion, the appropriate retention time and the other characteristics that you described about solubility, other than EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, as far as retention time is concerned, I have not seen any chromatography. This is the first time that it was done under these conditions, so I can't relate it. There is no internal standard, so I can't assign a relative amount to it, but as far as the parent ion, the estimated retention time, that means under the conditions that they use a short retention substance, relatively short retention substance, a parent ion of 293 and a daughter ion of 160, I don't know of any such substance and I have not been able to find any in the search of the Merck index of substances. I have looked and I haven't found any.

MR. BLASIER: Could I have another document marked, let's make it c of that last series because it goes together, which would be 1259-C?

THE COURT: All right.

(Deft's 1259-C for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, take a look at this first and then we will put it on the elmo. Does this appear to be what is called a full daughter ion scan chromatogram for Q206?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. It scans all the masses from 130, which I think is one of the lowest daughter ions of the 293 ion, all the way up to 295, which is just--which is the molecular ion plus three.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I take it what this is, it is looking for the other pieces in addition to the 160?

DR. RIEDERS: That is correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can we put this up on the elmo, please.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, could you look up at the top right-hand corner and tell us what range was being scanned with that chromatogram?

DR. RIEDERS: From mass 130, which is one of the break-up pieces of the parent ion, when that breaks up, it gives rise to 130 among others, all the way up to 295, which, as I said, is a piece larger than the molecule.

MR. BLASIER: Now, using my analogy of a television camera, is that--are we talking about a very long range of scan?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that any particular point that is being looked at is not being looked at very frequently because of the broad range of the scan?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in this particular one there are no peaks or triangles identified, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, they are not identified by being drawn as triangles or numbered; that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Do you see any things on there that could be potential indications of the presence of these ions at around the right retention time?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection, your Honor, under 352, as previously stated.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Can we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, indeed. We have, within the same range within which we determined before, a countable picture, because it was more focused, remember than in the previous one. We do have the highest peaks in that chromatogram fall into the same retention time range for all of the ions as they did for the ones that were clearly recognized as being 160 ions because of the focus on them.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I'm pointing my pen to the top one, which is the 132 daughter ion. Is that what you are talking about as the peak right in here, (Indicating)? Right in there, (Indicating)?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, except that the way that this--in the electrospray you get movement; you don't get that clear a definition. There are several points in here which you would find with 160 daughter ions.

MR. BLASIER: And now the 160 chart right below that, is that what you are talking about there, that peak is a possible indication of the presence of that?

DR. RIEDERS: Right, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you will acknowledge, will you not, that these peaks aren't nearly as well-defined as the ones we have looked at before; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course they are much smaller. The area is smaller and the peak is smaller because all of the energy for counting is spread over the range of 130 to--

MR. BLASIER: 295?

DR. RIEDERS: --to 295, whereas in the other one it is concentrated. All the energy of counting is to individually count each 160 fragment along with the other ones next--close next to it.

MR. BLASIER: Does this mean that the EDTA that you saw in the earlier two charts has somehow disappeared?

DR. RIEDERS: No. You have a less sensitive method, so the same amount of EDTA will show up as a peak that is not as tall and that doesn't have as much of an area. It looks fuzzier. It is looking at it through a somewhat darker glass than you looked at the 160, but you get more information in this run.

MR. BLASIER: I have two other charts.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have these marked as next in order, a and b?

THE COURT: Is this 160--1260.

(Deft's 1260-A & b for id = slides)

MR. BLASIER: 1260-A and b?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, for the record, 1260-A has D.A. discovery no. 4084 and is a chromatogram from a testing from Q204, the stain from the back gate, and 1260-B is D.A. discovery no. 4049, is a second test on the same stain from a different day.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, let me show you 1260-A and 1260-B. Does this appear to be two chromatograms from two different tests on two different days of the stain from the back gate at Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I can't see the dates. They are different times, but the date is not apparent.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

DR. RIEDERS: That is what you have on the side, 2/22 and 2/28.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Is that the date?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, when you were provided with the materials from the FBI the first time, were you able to tell what dates the tests were done on them?

DR. RIEDERS: On these papers?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: And why was that?

DR. RIEDERS: They weren't shown. They were cut off or they weren't shown.

MR. BLASIER: Were they in the order in which the tests had been run?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Were they somewhat mixed up?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-Q. I'm sorry.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what is 1257-S.

(Deft's 1257-S for id = slide)

MR. BLASIER: Does this appear to be an accurate depiction of both the chromatograms, 4049, 4084, two tests on the back gate stain on two different days?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, do the peaks shown on those two chromatograms have a retention time consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, they do. They have the same retention time range. They have a retention time well within the range shown by EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: And do they also demonstrate the presence of both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, because without the 293 you can't get the 160 in the ms/ms mode.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether, based on those chromatograms, there is EDTA present in the stain from the back gate?

DR. RIEDERS: In my opinion, yes, it demonstrates that there is EDTA present in that stain.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what are negative controls?

DR. RIEDERS: Negative controls are samples put through the same procedure as your sample at issue and samples which are known not to contain any added substance that you are looking for. And if run in the appropriate sensitivity they are negative controls because by the method used they will give a negative test result if the--if, a, there is in fact no more or if there isn't any there, and b, that the method that has been applied has worked as well there.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz of the FBI test an area of the sock that did not have any apparent blood on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That is what he states he did.

MR. BLASIER: Is that what is meant by negative control?

DR. RIEDERS: I believe so. That is what he meant, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did that indicate the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: No, it did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that tell you about the bloodstain?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that means since it is my opinion that the bloodstain contained EDTA, that that came from the blood and not from the sock.

MR. BLASIER: Does that rule out any contribution from laundry detergent or something else that might be throughout the entire sock?

DR. RIEDERS: Reasonably certainly, yes, unless of course the blood was dotted with laundry detergent, you know, and nothing else on the sock was.

MR. BLASIER: Now, as to the back gate, did Agent Martz run any negative control on the back gate?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And were those from a swatch taken from an area just away from the blood but had no blood on it?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how many of those negative controls did he run?

DR. RIEDERS: I recall four.

MR. BLASIER: What were the results of his testing on those four?

DR. RIEDERS: Three were negative and one was positive.

MR. BLASIER: When you get a mixture like that, what is the interpretation?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, the interpretation is that you better run four more or do something like that, because you have something there which doesn't make sense.

MR. BLASIER: But the fact that you have three negative controls coming back negative, what does that indicate?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you know, if you want to put it on a majority basis that there is a 75 percent probability that it is truly negative and that the fourth one is something that happened, either contamination, you know, an accident, or you know, something happened to that sample or that it got mixed up. I can't tell you what, obviously, but--

MR. BLASIER: Does the fact that three of the negative controls are negative indicate that there was no EDTA on the control swatch taken from the gate but not from the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you asked to consider the question of whether the FBI's methods were capable of reliably determining the amount of EDTA that the test detected to any degree of analytical certainty or accuracy?

DR. RIEDERS: The amount, no, I really don't think that it is capable of doing a reasonably acceptable quantitative analysis job at all, which is inherent not in what the FBI did, but in the electrospray method.

MR. BLASIER: Were you asked to determine whether the FBI methods were capable of reliably determining concentrations of EDTA in the evidence sample?

DR. RIEDERS: No way, and not only because of what I said before, but in order to do concentrations you would really have to know how much sample was in that swatch that you analyzed, how much got wiped off there, how much blood was in there that you have, and there is no way that you can really tell that from the tests that were done.

MR. BLASIER: Now, again by concentrations we are talking about parts per million?

DR. RIEDERS: Or paths per billion or whatever, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Was the FBI's testing methodology capable of determining parts per billion, in your opinion?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, it--no, it was not, not at all.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with the technique that the FBI used we had talked previously about ion count, in other words, how high the peak is. Do you recall that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: With this testing methodology, when they don't use an internal standard, can you relate one peak height to the peak height of a test done on a different day?

DR. RIEDERS: Only saying that this is much bigger than that, but which is right, which is wrong or where is right or wrong, you can't say.

MR. BLASIER: Well, does the peak height vary depending on the day that you do the test, or can it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, even with the same day you have as much as a seven-fold variation between two runs each on a 50 parts per million known sample.

MR. BLASIER: And did you examine--did Agent Martz run several known EDTA stands, 50 parts per million, to see what kind of peak heights he got?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: And was there a lot of variation in those peak heights?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, seven-fold.

MR. BLASIER: Does that indicate to you as to whether you can use peak height to accurately determine concentration?

DR. RIEDERS: Not individual peak height, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let's say if you wanted to use this method as a way of quantifying how much EDTA you found, what would be the appropriate procedure?

DR. RIEDERS: You could do it if you used an internal standard that I had mentioned before where the ratio of the area or of the peak heights is constant at a given concentration, and where the two behave in a very, very similar manner.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with the--an internal standard, is that a substance that is very close to the EDTA, but enough difference so that you can tell the difference?

DR. RIEDERS: That is the ideal, that you can tell the difference, but that otherwise the behavior is not significantly different. The properties are sufficiently different so you can separate them either with the liquid chromatograph or with a mass spectrometer.

MR. BLASIER: And are those kind of compounds available commercially?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you would use an internal standard, do you actually put the internal standard with the evidence that you are testing or do you do it in a different run?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no, you do it right in the sample. The ideal thing is to--if you have a swatch like he had--is to put the internal standard on the swatch, known amount, and then extract it, really put it on the swatch, let it dry, let it age a while because you didn't just prepare it. You know, it has been around a while, and then extract it. You know how much you should find from that. Now, of course you run also control where you just put neatly the internal standard into the machine and see the amount that I'm going to put on the swatch would show up. If I get a hundred percent of it back at certain height and certain area and then I put it on the swatch, then I put it in the water and so that eventually you end up with a chromatogram like this with two peaks close to each other but far enough apart so that you can tell one from the other.

MR. BLASIER: And does that allow you, since you know how much of the internal standard you put in there, does that allow you to then quantify how much was in the evidence?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, but taking the ratio of, let's say, the height of the known over the height of the unknown or visa versa and comparing that with the standard, because that ratio is going to be reasonably constant.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz use an internal standard in his testing?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is using an internal standard very common practice when running mass spec tests?

DR. RIEDERS: It is a standard procedure wherever one is available, not only for quantization, but also for retention time characterization. If one moves to a different retention time, so does the other, so again, that relative retention time is kept much tighter that way. And it is almost--it has almost become a requirement of chromatography, in quotes of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let's assume hypothetically that the stain from the back gate was put there using blood from a reference tube that had EDTA in it and let's assume also hypothetically that the stain in the sock was placed there using blood with EDTA in it. Were you asked to consider the question of how much EDTA you would expect to find if you then tested those bloodstains eight months later?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I was asked.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it important, when you are running a sample, if you want to determine how much of something like EDTA is present, that you know how much you start with?

DR. RIEDERS: How much sample you start with?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you had a blood swatch, let's say, from the back gate or a piece of the sock from the sock that appeared to have blood in it, can you tell how much blood is there by just looking at it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't.

MR. BLASIER: What are the standard procedures used to determine the quantity of blood that might be in a swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you bring it into a water solution, preferably with a little ammonia, because old stains are hard to get out, and you read that in a spectrophotometer for the hemoglobin content or for the hematin content, which is a fairly selective method, or else for the soret band absorbing proteins as you call them.

That is one way. It is a simple way because you don't do anything to the sample. You can handle it afterward, do anything you want to with it. You just put it in a light spectrophotometer and you get the spectrum and at certain wavelength standards you determine how much hemoglobin, which is really what the blood has most of, or if you are dealing with serum or plasma, how much protein based on the soret band which is also an absorption in the ultraviolet region there is.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any other?

DR. RIEDERS: There are other ways of doing it. I mean, you know more about this probably than I do, because you have been so well-educated in this. You can determine the amount of DNA in it and that tells you how much blood there was, because blood has a fairly known amount of DNA in it. You can also determine other substances in there that are characteristic of blood. For instance, if your background material doesn't have any iron in it, the measurement of iron in a sample like this is a good measure of hemoglobin because most of the iron in blood come from hemoglobin. Again, assuming that this is blood, not serum or plasma. What I usually do is spectrophotometry and/or iron determination and/or copper and zinc, if the--you know, if I have a sample that is diluted blood and I want to know how dilute it is or how much there is, so you can do it, you know.

MR. BLASIER: Is that equipment that you would expect to find in any well-equipped lab?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure that is available.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether the FBI has that kind of equipment?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't know what their lab has, but if they have got an incident, I'm sure they couldn't do without the others.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in agent Matheson's work papers indicating that he used any method other than just looking at a stain to determine how much blood he started with from the evidence?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I only saw in his papers here on--he made stain sizes on a--on a cloth and said when I put a drop on I get so much stain and when I put--you know, on another one, I get such an area and the area that I have is--comprises of a fraction of that, which I don't think is a workable way of doing it, unless you do it to exactly the same material, do it many, many times, do averages, standard deviations and other things, so--because what he had wasn't a drop of blood placed on the kind of material he was testing or on anything, for that matter, but in the case of the gate it is something that got wiped off again.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you evaluate or look at the method that he used to attempt to extract the blood that was in the evidence, the sock stain and the back gate swatch to extract the blood from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I looked at it.

MR. BLASIER: And what was that method, briefly?

DR. RIEDERS: Essentially he took a--he took what he had, you know, what was available, a portion of it, and he put it into 25 microliters of water.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is all hearsay. This witness wasn't present.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you--

THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard the answer.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you, hypothetically, if you took, let's say, first of all, an old stain that had been on a swatch for eight months and put it in water, plain water, let's say 25 microliters, and let it soak for 45 minutes and centrifuged it, is that an efficient way to remove all of the blood from the stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical, no facts this evidence, no foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: It is a way but you won't get a hundred percent, you will get a relatively low recovery from an old stain. You know, a dried stain where it is dried for all that period of time, is bone dry, it won't all dissolve in the water, much less than all, just a small portion or just a small--

MR. BLASIER: What would be an acceptable technique to remove all of the blood from the evidence item?

DR. RIEDERS: It is--to remove all the blood really what you would have to do is if you could only use water, you could only use water, is to repeat that. You put it in 25 microliters, you let it sit for an hour, you shake it for an hour, you centrifuge it, you take it out, put it in another 25 microliters and every time you run some kind of a non-destructive test to see are you still getting blood out, are you still getting blood out, until you don't see any more coming out, then you are pretty sure you have gotten it all out. You can even change that by using, for instance, dilute ammonia, which is a better solvent for dried blood than plain water, but it, too, you have to establish that this will all come out by doing sequential extractions and mesh in each one the amount of the sample--blood that is in it in one way or another.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if you were testing an old bloodstain to determine how much EDTA was present and you did not extract all of the blood from the stain, you are going to find a smaller amount of EDTA than might actually be there?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: If you don't--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: If you don't remove all of the blood from the evidence swatch are you going to--and the blood has EDTA in it, are you going to find less EDTA than is in the whole stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical and also calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Of course. I mean that is very self-evident. If you don't get it all, you have less than if you get it all, whatever it is.

MR. BLASIER: Now, incidentally, are you aware of any other case or any published literature on the issue of determining levels of EDTA in bloodstains in forensic cases?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I am not. I don't think there is anything published. I have asked around. I don't know of anyone who has done it.

MR. BLASIER: Would you say that this is brand new ground in terms of that particular test I told you about?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure. For EDTA in a blood swatch of this type, it is--it is brand new ground. EDTA has been determined in blood, but not in a blood swatch in a forensic case, et cetera, et cetera, to any published extent or anyway I know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the chromatography and the mass spec techniques, those are all techniques that have been around for a long time, haven't they?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Well, they have--the mass spectrometry and chromatography is fairly old.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork that you reviewed indicating that the FBI did any studies to determine the differences between extracting blood from an old stain versus a new stain?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: By the way, if you have a swatch that is made from a bloodstain, for instance, on a back gate, can you tell from looking at that swatch how much blood is in it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't, no.

MR. BLASIER: Can that vary from one swatch to the next?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure it will, greatly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the context of the testing done by the FBI, what is a positive control?

DR. RIEDERS: A positive control in that context, as in other contexts, is one in which the substance at issue has been added in a known quantity and preferably not only in a known quantity but to a known concentration. That means a situation where you know how much sample you have and how much you are adding. That is concentration. If you don't know how much sample you have and you put it on a microgram, then you know you've put one microgram in, but you don't know what the concentration is because you don't know one microgram per what.

MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically, if you had a bloodstain on a metal gate that was not collected, in other words, was out in the outside environment subject to the weather and other environmental factors for a period of from a day to two or three weeks, what effect would those conditions have on the presence of EDTA in the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Now--

MR. BLASIER: Assuming that the original stain had--

DR. RIEDERS: You put a wet stain on and let it sit there dry and be exposed for a day or more?

MR. BLASIER: With EDTA blood, yes.

DR. RIEDERS: With EDTA blood? There would be some degradation from environment factors. How much should really be determined experimentally, but I'm reasonably sure there would be because it has been done.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation, lack of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed literature on a study that is called the photodegradation of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did that article tell you?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically that article tells us that if you have EDTA solution, in this case the EDTA in the German river called the Neckar, N-E-C-K-A-R. And if you sample that with EDTA in it on a sunny day in Germany, that the amount of EDTA that is in that solution is going to break down half--half of it is going to break down in less than ten minutes from the sunshine itself. So that is photodegradation. It is because of the energy of the sun rays interacting with the EDTA in the water. The material that was used for that was iron EDTA--was an iron chelate of EDTA. Degradation of EDTA is described for sludge, it is described in the literature for bacterial degradation, so-called biotic, by living organism, and a biotic, by the presence of oxygen and absence of oxygen, so it is known it degrades. If you take a sample of EDTA in blood and freeze it, it will stay there.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is outside of scope of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Also, the article is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: If you were trying to determine how much EDTA you would have in an EDTA bloodstain that had been subjected to one day to two or three weeks outside environment on a particular type of metal fence, how would you determine that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I have done things like this, and in this case it is obvious, you get a material which is as alike as possible to the metal fence, maybe a piece of the metal fence, and you put ten dots of EDTA blood on it and you put on it ten drops--ten dots of blood in other places, of blood that doesn't have any EDTA in it, that is not in an EDTA tube, but it is normal human blood. Normally it contains virtually no EDTA. Then what you do is you analyze the control or more than one control. That means you take a little bit of an area where there is no blood and you take that and try to know how much you have and analyze it. Then you wash off one of the spots that has EDTA and another spot that doesn't have EDTA, you analyze all three and you repeat that everyday for a week or something like that, for a portion of the time. If it just for a few hours that you are interested in, then you repeat it during a period of several hours. You analyze it and you see whether it is broken down, you know, whether the one that was put there an hour ago has less in it than the one that you took off right away and analyzed or the one that you took--was there for a week. And if during that whole period there is no breakdown, then you say, well, I don't know whether it would break down in eight months like you are--or eight weeks or whatever, but at least I know that during that period it is stable. Usually in a substance, my experience is, that a substance that does break down, within a week you will be able to tell that it does. Then carefully can extrapolate say that in eight months there is going to be nothing there or I think there may be some there, but that becomes somewhat speculative.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that what you have described as a possible method to determine that, is that part of what should be a validation study on the method?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that is what I would call a validation of the method for this purpose.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork from the FBI indicating that they did any test at all to determine how much EDTA would have been lost under the conditions that we described?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you about the sock. Let's assume hypothetically that EDTA blood was put on the sock at some point in time and let's assume further than between the time that blood was put on there and the time it was analyzed by the FBI it was examined several times using high intensity lights involving physical manipulation in the process of examining it. Can you tell us whether or not that would result in the degradation of the EDTA that was originally in that blood?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical, assumes a fact that has not been proven.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MS. CLARK: And calls for--I'm sorry. Calls for speculation, outside the expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, photodegradation, does that work when you shine a light on something?

DR. RIEDERS: That is what photodegradation is, from light energy.

MR. BLASIER: And the one study that you have cited looked at photodegradation and found that it can occur with EDTA, correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that article is irrelevant.

THE COURT: What form of EDTA was used--is used in the purple vials?

MR. BLASIER: Well, actually it is--do you want me to answer?

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to know.

MR. BLASIER: It can be there in several forms; iron EDTA, calcium EDTA, several others.

THE COURT: What was used here?

MR. BLASIER: I don't know. I mean it can--it picks up iron is what it does.

THE COURT: I understand that, but the one article you have talks about the water quality in the Neckar Valley River.

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: A delightful place. That is why the Germans call it the romantic highway, but it doesn't tell me a lot about this case.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask a different question.

THE COURT: Approach the side bar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: I'm just a little concerned about the basis of his expert opinion. Is this one study of water quality in the Neckar river regarding photodegradation of EDTA that if we don't know that it is the same form of EDTA, I don't know that it is valid to base an expert opinion on it.

MS. CLARK: Let me add to that, please, because there is another issue of concern which I've conferred about with the FBI which is that this shows the degradation of EDTA when in water. There is a dig difference between the breakdown of chemicals in water versus in dried state, and the stains we are talking about here are in dried state, so you have a complete irrelevance between the article and this.

THE COURT: Well, you have a dried state, plus you have it bonded with calcium, so it is a different situation.

MR. BLASIER: Let me--

THE COURT: The point being I'm concerned about your foundation. Let me let the jurors go.

MR. BLASIER: Let me tell you where I'm depending with it. He is going to say exactly the same thing as the other study on photodegradation, that there aren't any studies on high intensity lamps, and the FBI should have done that because there isn't any literature.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Other point is my recollection of the EDTA study and the water quality of the Neckar river is that was UV light that they tested for.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Not other spectrum, so I think you need to--I think the light we used here was infrared; is that correct?

MS. CLARK: Yeah. When the socks were visualized, yes.

MR. BLASIER: The high intensity light is not--

MR. COCHRAN: High intensity light.

MS. CLARK: What high intensity lights? They used infrared and natural light.

MR. BLASIER: Every time they looked at it under the microscope there were high intensity lights. I was there when it was done.

MS. CLARK: You mean the microscopic?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: What period of time?

THE COURT: I think there are some foundational items--

MS. CLARK: He is going to ask a series of speculative questions, say we don't know when it breaks down, we don't know--

THE COURT: I'm sure you will bring that out on cross-examination.

MS. CLARK: He is going to do that in order to raise the spectre of something that there is no evidence for.

MR. BLASIER: They should have tested.

MR. COCHRAN: I understand the foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Just so you understand what my concerns are at this point.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Having traveled extensively in the Neckar river valley.

MR. COCHRAN: We can tell.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I wasn't paying attention to the clock, otherwise I would have taken a recess at this point, so we are going to take our recess for the lunch hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. doctor, you can step down. You are ordered to come back at 1:00 P.M.

DR. RIEDERS: Thank you.

(Recess.)

(At 12:03 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 1:00 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter.

(Pages 38481 through 38484, volume 192A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, we ended the morning session with some objections regarding foundation for this photo chemical degradation of EDTA. The Court's question was whether or not the lab used in this case the ion the EDTA and whether or not there was--that study of water soluble EDTA is really relatable to EDTA in blood that has already bonded with the calcium element.

MR. BLASIER: Actually, Agent Martz' first series of tests that he did were looking for the ion EDTA, and he found a substantial amount, enough to measure certainly. So it's there in the presence of the reference blood. My only point about this particular article is, there's no question it's a limited article, limited circumstances. I'm not going to use this to have him express an opinion as to how many EDTA are on the sock. What I'm going to do is elicit from him in order to make the determination of what you might lose from the sock, you need to do testing on conditions similar to the socks, but you would not rely on this study to make an assessment as to whether or not you are going to lose any data from the sock.

THE COURT: Aren't you asking the jurors to form an opinion by then bringing out the exposure to the infrared light and the microscope and high intensity light?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to bring out the fact that these things conceivably could result in some loss of EDTA and that was never checked, and that's another way of showing that the testing that was done here is not adequate to show you how much you should have there.

THE COURT: But if we only have one study that tests photodegradation in water, in river water, as nice a river as it is, it's not really relatable to blood.

MR. BLASIER: Well, it's ion EDTA which we know is present in this blood. It's--it was in solution at some time. It photodegrades. I mean, the only information we have is that EDTA photodegrades under certain conditions. We don't have any studies that say it doesn't under other conditions. Our position is that this is something that would have been part of a validation study.

THE COURT: I think it's clearly enough for a scientist to be curious, but to say that EDTA under these conditions in blood photodegrades--

MR. BLASIER: Oh, no. I intend to have him say exactly what you just said, that this is something that should have been checked.

THE COURT: I heard it a little more conclusionary than that.

MR. BLASIER: So I'll clean it up.

THE COURT: All right. I want you to know I'm concerned.

MR. BLASIER: No. I understand. I'll do that first thing.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the problem I have is--and the manner in which the questions and answers have been going is that the deliberate impression being left is that EDTA will degrade. Not only is that--

THE COURT: Photodegrade.

MS. CLARK: Photodegrade, correct. I'm sorry. Will photodegrade. And the problem with that is, if it is not proven to be the case at all, then the testimony runs contrary to what we know about the stability of EDTA as a compound. And in the absence of this doctor having some experiment or expertise in that determination, then that's not shown. So instead of just bringing out the fact--and I think it's improper to cause a jury to speculate on that as well. There is no known literature or experimentation to document whether EDTA, especially in a dry stain, will photodegrade. And to cause the jury to speculate on that possibility when there's no showing of that--I mean, let's not forget something here. There's no proof that the blood was planted period. And this is an effort by the Defense on the defensive to take evidence of the fact that there was no planting, make it so confusing that the jury is going to go off the deep end trying to figure out what it is, and hopefully from them, from their side, conclude that there was.

I mean, that's really the bottom line here because we have a premise and it's never been shown and it can never be shown because it's not true. That's the biggest problem I have. But then--okay. They want to do this, that's fine. But then to deliberately confuse and mislead the jury to make them believe that there could have been more EDTA there which degraded because of the exposure to the sunlight is going way off the deep end in speculation. And that impression has definitely been left. And for Mr. Blasier to go any farther with this, asking the doctor about experiments concerning that--

THE COURT: So, Miss Clark, I take it the bottom line of what you're trying to say is, you're making a 352 objection?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Based upon the lack of a scientific basis for photodegradation, EDTA and blood?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. And just alluding to the fact there is none creates the impression with the jury. You know what I mean?

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Mr. Blasier. I really think her objection is well-taken. I mean, that's why I jumped in there to ask the question because I don't see the foundation to talk about this.

MR. BLASIER: Well, again, I'm going to point out exactly what you said. My point is that the fact that there isn't any literature on--under these conditions shows that they never tested for that, so they can't say whether it would have degraded out or not. Tha