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. The Defendant is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Harmon and Miss Kahn. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we heed to take up before we--
MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: --proceed to Mr. Martz?
MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: No, your Honor. May I ask for a point of clarification?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MS. CLARK: When did we set the MacDonell motions?
THE COURT: We are going to launch into motions today at four o'clock and see how far we get.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: And today we have another early ending time at four o'clock, so take up some motions and see if we can get some of that extraneous stuff out of the way.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, one--
THE COURT: And tomorrow's schedule we will not convene until 1:30 on Wednesday.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, as to the scheduling matter--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --the issue that you had put on the back burner about the RFLP testing being conducted by the Department of Justice on the combined stains from the console of the Bronco.
THE COURT: I'm trying to recollect.
MR. SCHECK: That was the one where there was A--they asked for permission to combine all the stains and then waited for a month and a half, two months, and you said I don't have to reach that issue because we don't have any results yet. I was informed that they have completed two probes and they might call one of them and I'm going to get some pictures maybe back at my hotel today, and I've discussed a little bit with Mr. Harmon, but I think that we just have to schedule a time to hear that sometime before the end of the week since we heed to know what the Court's ruling is going to be on whether they can introduce that so then we can structure how these Defense witnesses can testify.
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And counsel, we'll start, the Court will explain that Dr. Rieders had a medical appointment in was it Philadelphia?
MR. BLASIER: Philadelphia.
THE COURT: That he will be returning to complete cross-examination on Friday.
MR. COCHRAN: Right, depending on the schedule, obviously.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And what is Agent Martz' first name?
MS. CLARK: Roger.
THE COURT: Roger.
MS. CLARK: Roger.
(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. The record should reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: Before we get started, I just needed to explain to you that Dr. Fredric Rieders, who was undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark at the conclusion of the day yesterday, had a medical appointment back in his hometown of Philadelphia and he has returned back east for that purpose and will be back here on Friday morning to complete his testimony for you. So we are going to present some other witnesses to you in the interim so we can use the Court time, but you should just know that we will conclude Dr. Rieders' testimony on Friday. We will start early on that date at 8:00 A.M. and will be concluding early on Friday at eleven o'clock in the morning. All right. And Mr. Blasier, you may call your next witness.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. We call Roger Martz.
Roger M. Martz, 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.
MR. MARTZ: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
MR. MARTZ: Roger M. Martz, m-a-r-t-z.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, Mr. Martz.
MR. MARTZ: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, what is your occupation, sir?
MR. MARTZ: I'm a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MR. BLASIER: Do you prefer to be called Agent Martz or Mr. Martz?
MR. MARTZ: Mr. Martz is fine.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, as special agent for the FBI, the term "Special agent," does that have any particular meaning?
MR. MARTZ: No, it is actually just a job title.
MR. BLASIER: All agents are special agents?
MR. MARTZ: With the FBI, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your occupation--within the FBI, what is your occupation? What do you do?
MR. MARTZ: I am presently assigned as the unit chief in charge of the chemistry toxicology unit at the FBI laboratory in Washington D.C.
MR. BLASIER: Could you please describe briefly your educational background.
MR. MARTZ: I have a bachelor's degree of science from the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. I received that in 1974. After that I joined the FBI and received extensive training with the FBI laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: So you have a bachelor in science?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a master's degree?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a Ph.D. degree?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any advanced degree whatsoever?
MR. MARTZ: No. I have taken some advanced courses, but never attained a degree.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are you a member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry?
MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.
MR. BLASIER: What is that?
MR. MARTZ: It is just an organization that a lot of people that perform mass spectrometry belong to.
MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of the Canadian Society for Mass Spectrometry?
MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.
MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of the American chemical society?
MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.
MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of American academy of forensic science?
MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.
MR. BLASIER: Are you a member of any professional organization that has as one of its principle subjects of interest mass spectrometry?
MR. MARTZ: The one that I am in is the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists and a lot of the work that most forensic scientists perform is mass spectrometry.
MR. BLASIER: Are you an officer with that organization?
MR. MARTZ: No, I am not.
MR. BLASIER: Have you published any article on the area of mass spectrometry or chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: I guess probably beginning the early 1880's I published numerous articles pertaining to mass spectrometry used in forensic science.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a list of those articles?
MR. MARTZ: Not with me, no.
MR. BLASIER: How many articles are there that you published?
MR. MARTZ: There is probably four that I have published over the years and then there is three that are in print right now.
MR. BLASIER: So four that have been published up to this point in time?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you started doing mass spectrometry in what year?
MR. MARTZ: 1975.
MR. BLASIER: Now, has your entire employment history been with the FBI?
MR. MARTZ: Well, since 1974.
MR. BLASIER: Since college?
MR. MARTZ: Since I received my degree from college, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And during that period of time has it all been devoted to working with mass spectrometry?
MR. MARTZ: Pretty much. After I joined the FBI, for the first four years I was a chemist assigned to the FBI laboratory. When I initially joined the FBI my aspirations were to become an agent with the FBI laboratory--or with the FBI. When I joined the FBI in 1974 I did not have the sufficient qualifications to become an agent, so I was assigned to the laboratory because I had a degree in science. After four years I was qualified to at least take the test to determine whether or not I could become a special agent. I passed the test and became a special agent with the FBI in 1978. And I was assigned to the Chicago division, so for approximately two years I spent investigating in the Chicago division. In 1980 I was then transferred back into the laboratory as an examiner in the FBI laboratory. For approximately the next ten years I was an examiner, assigned cases in the laboratory and worked those cases. Approximately 1989 I was then promoted to the unit chief in charge of the chemistry toxicology unit and I have held that title since then.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, did--does the FBI work on cases for state Prosecutors?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, we do.
MR. BLASIER: The FBI also handles federal cases for federal agencies, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Does the FBI take Defense cases from private Defense attorneys?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, there is exceptions to every rule, but my understanding we'll accept a case from any duly authorized government agency.
MR. BLASIER: And that would not include defense attorneys, would it?
MR. MARTZ: That would not, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how many times have you testified as an expert in the field of toxicology?
MR. MARTZ: In toxicology I don't know specifically, but I have testified approximately 78 times in forensic chemistry, including toxicology.
MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us for toxicology approximately how many times, give us a rough estimate?
MR. MARTZ: Probably not very many, to be perfectly honest. I don't have the exact number.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, have you ever testified as an expert on the electrospray process?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I understand that question. That is not generally what you ever testify to in court. You testify to the identification. The electrospray is used in that identification, but to the process, I don't quite follow the question.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Electrospray is one step in a particular process to analyze the presence of chemical in a substance; is that fair to say?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, the times that you have testified in court, how many of those times have been for the Prosecution and how many have been for the Defense?
MR. MARTZ: I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that I have only testified for the Defense on one other occasion.
MR. BLASIER: So it is unusual for you to be called by the Defense?
MR. MARTZ: It has been, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you are acquainted with Dr. Fredric Rieders who was here in court yesterday?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: Are you working on or consulting with him on some other criminal cases?
MR. MARTZ: There are two other cases that we are communicating on.
MR. BLASIER: Do those involve devising methods for detecting the presence of poisons in body tissue or in body tissue?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, could you tell us what is EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: EDTA is a preservative, in this particular case, used to preserve blood. It has many other properties. I believe about ninety million pounds--the last time that I saw reference to was in 1975, ninety million pounds of EDTA were produced that year, so it is a very common chemical that is used extensively in preserving foods. It is used in a lot of other--it is actually used almost in all manufacturing in this country. It is a preservative. It is used in fabrics, it is used in laundry bleaches, it is used in foods. It is a very common chemical. When ninety million pounds are produced, you know that a lot of it is used.
MR. BLASIER: And its purposes for use in blood vials, what kind of blood vials is EDTA put in?
MR. MARTZ: It is put into the lavender or purple-topped test-tubes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we display People's or Defense 1258 on the elmo?
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, could you please look at the monitor and tell us is what is depicted there are pictures of two purple-topped EDTA blood tubes?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Those are purple-topped tubes that I received in the laboratory on February the 19th, I believe.
MR. BLASIER: And you provided this picture to me, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding as to where those purple-topped EDTA tubes came from?
MR. MARTZ: One came from OJ Simpson and the other from Nicole Simpson.
MR. BLASIER: And the one that came from Nicole Simpson, what is your understanding as to when that was collected?
MR. MARTZ: I assume it was taken at autopsy.
MR. BLASIER: After death?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, at some point in time were you contacted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney regarding this case?
MR. MARTZ: Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Or representatives of the Prosecution in this case?
MR. MARTZ: I was certainly contacted. I don't know exactly how--how it worked, whether they contacted me or they contacted me through Quantico, our research facility, but we did make contact at one point.
MR. BLASIER: About when did that occur? When was the first contact that they had with you?
MR. MARTZ: With me it is hard to say. I first did my test on February the 8th, so I certainly had contact before February the 8th.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether you are--are you--have you been following this trial at all?
MR. MARTZ: You know, working, you can't follow it very closely, but news at night, you certainly see it on the news and in the newspaper.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether when the Prosecutors contacted you it was before or after the opening statement in this case?
MR. MARTZ: When was the opening statement?
MR. BLASIER: In late January.
MR. MARTZ: I probably didn't become involved until after that. Whether the FBI was contacted before that on the EDTA, I don't know, but I don't think I was contacted before that time period.
MR. BLASIER: Now, once you were contacted were you asked to perform certain tests?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And what did they ask you to do?
MR. MARTZ: They asked us to determine whether or not we could determine whether the bloodstains, the two bloodstains in question, originated from purple-topped test-tubes or test-tubes that were preserved with EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: Well, do you have the--the letter with you that describes what it is they asked you to do?
MR. MARTZ: I think I do have that letter.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have it handy or do you want me to give you a copy?
MR. MARTZ: If you can give me a copy, that would make it a lot easier.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: May we approach, your Honor? We have an objection to the letter.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MS. CLARK: There will be an objection. I think the Court needs to see this.
THE COURT: I can't hear you.
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant. I would like to approach so the Court can see what I'm objecting to.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Off the record.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. CLARK: The objection, your Honor, is on the ground of relevance. I do not see what the letter to Agent Martz has to do with anything concerning his testing results. I'm sure that--well, I'm not going to put words in Mr. Blasier's mouth. I'm sure that he can articulately frame his reason for wanting to get it in, but I do not think it is appropriate.
THE COURT: What is the relevance?
MR. BLASIER: Well, this explains what he was asked to do. Obviously it is relevant as to what he did, whether it shows bias, if did he what he asked to do, if he did something different. It frames his whole testimony as to what he did and why.
MS. CLARK: He was asked to conduct certain tests. It was framed in the mind of the attorney this way. But I think that the appropriate question would be whether, you know, what he felt. What he felt he had to do, not what words Mr. Harmon used. Whatever words Mr. Harmon used, the appropriate and relevant question is what did he think he was supposed to do and how did he think he was supposed to go about it.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. All right. The objection is overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, have you had a chance to read that paragraph?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Is that the paragraph that tells you what they wanted you to do?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What does that tell you to do?
MR. MARTZ: Do you want me to read it?
MR. BLASIER: Can I put it on the elmo?
THE COURT: Put on both pages.
MR. BLASIER: Both pages.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I was only going to refer to the last page.
MS. CLARK: Objection under 356, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then you can go into that under cross-examination, counsel.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Back it out just a little, Mr. Harris.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, could you read that from there?
MR. MARTZ: "We would like you to test these items for the presence/absence of EDTA in order to refute the possibility that the stains on the sock, item 13, could have come from Nicole's reference sample, 59 or 72. Similarly, we would like you to test item 117 to refute the possibility that it could have come from Simpson's reference sample, no. 17."
MR. BLASIER: Now, actually I'm going to show the first page.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Did you interpret by the way that request was made as a request to do some testing and they wanted a particular result?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't--I didn't infer that, no.
MR. BLASIER: Did you, when you approached the testing that you did, did you do it with an idea that you were trying to get one result as opposed to another result?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you the first page of that letter and could you read just the first sentence.
MR. MARTZ: "This letter is to describe the items we are sending to you in order to detect the presence or absence of EDTA in specific bloodstains which are of significance in this case."
MR. BLASIER: Now, were you ever requested by the Prosecution by way of this letter to try and quantify the amount of EDTA should you find it?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't interpret it that way.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, up to the time that you were contacted by the Prosecutors in this case, have you ever worked in any manner or fashion with EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: I have certainly worked with it, but I have never tried to analyze for it.
MR. BLASIER: Had you ever been asked to determine whether it was present in blood or any other substance?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Had you ever been--ever attempted to design a test to extract EDTA from dried bloodstains?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is the technique that you used that we have been talking about yesterday, the--I want you to tell us what that technique is called.
MR. MARTZ: Well, the technique that I primarily use was electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
MR. BLASIER: You used chromatograph as well, did you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What form of chromatography did you use?
MR. MARTZ: I used liquid chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: Are there other forms of chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: The more conventional chromatography with mass spectrometry would be gas chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you hear yesterday Miss Clark asking some questions about the effect or the relationship between electrospray and chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that electrospray has nothing to do with chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: Well, conventionally you use chromatography with electrospray.
MR. BLASIER: But does chromatography--I'm sorry. Is electrospray involved in the chromatography stage at all?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is a precursor to chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: A precursor?
MR. MARTZ: Right. That is the way that we do electrospray at the FBI laboratory with liquid chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: That you do the electrospray before you do the chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: No, the chromatography precedes the electrospray. They work in conjunction. You need--in order to do electrospray you need a liquid, so to get the liquid you use liquid chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: But the method of chromatography--the electrospray happens after the chromatography is done; isn't that right?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you use liquid chromatography--you indicated that gas chromatography is a more commonly used procedure?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And could you have done gas chromatography in this case?
MR. MARTZ: Not without manipulating the chemical EDTA. EDTA will not gas--work on the gas chromatography.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what the technique derivatizing samples is?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that the technique that you would use if you wanted to use gas chromatography?
MR. MARTZ: It is a technique that could be used. I have not tried it with EDTA. I don't know how successful it is.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that that form of chromatography is much better than the form that you used?
MR. MARTZ: No, I would not agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are you familiar with the method of liquid chromatography called gradient elution?
MR. MARTZ: It sounds something familiar.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Have you ever used that?
MR. MARTZ: Not per se.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know whether that is a better chromatography procedure for what you were trying to do than what you did?
MR. MARTZ: I wouldn't say that it was or wasn't, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did--were you listening yesterday when there were questions being asked about the efficiency, if you will, of your chromatography method that you used?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And could you tell us whether your method does not effectively separate compounds by retention time?
MR. MARTZ: It does not. It--the way that I used it, it is not very effective in separating compounds. I can give you an analogy. If everyone in here was to run a marathon, people would finish at different times. Very few people would finish at two hours. Some people may take six hours. Well, with the type of chromatography that I used it would be more like a 50-yard dash. We would all run a 50-yard dash. We would all finish about the same time.
THE COURT: Agent, the world's best is 2:06.
MR. BLASIER: You are familiar with other methods of chromatography that work better than the one you used, aren't you?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is vague. For what?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: My purpose in chromatography was not for identification. I did not even consider that in the identification of these compounds.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I move to strike that answer as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, are you familiar with other techniques of chromatography that would provide better information in terms of separating compounds than the one you used?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, and I did use a better one on the 28th which gave separation for EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: All right. The 28th of February?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What was the difference in the method that you used from the 22nd to the 28th?
MR. MARTZ: The one did not involve mass spectrometry. I was able to use a compound which is not very friendly to the electrospray.
MR. BLASIER: Now, so the first step that you tried on February--February 22nd is where you tested for the first time under the method that we have been talking about, the sock and the gate stains; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, the 19th I did a method of electrospray mass spectrometry.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. MARTZ: That test we have failed to mention so far.
MR. BLASIER: Let's mention it. What method was that?
MR. MARTZ: It was the same thing. It was electrospray mass spectrometry using LC.
MR. BLASIER: That is using what is called the negative ion mode; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: That is correct, which is more selective than the positive ion mode.
MR. BLASIER: Did you find that that was much less sensitive than the positive ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: It was less sensitive.
MR. BLASIER: About how many orders of magnitude?
MR. MARTZ: It was approximately ten, ten times less sensitive.
MR. BLASIER: All right. So it was after you used that method that it was ten times less sensitive that you used the positive ion mode that we have been talking about that is more sensitive, correct?
MR. MARTZ: In this particular case it ended up being more sensitive, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You knew at the time that you did the negative ion mode, once you saw the results, that it was not a particularly sensitive test; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: It certainly--I would agree with that. It was not that sensitive of a test.
MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you decided that you needed to do something a little bit more sensitive?
MR. MARTZ: No, that is not fair to say at all.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But you did?
MR. MARTZ: I did, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if the method that you chose for the liquid chromatography was not particularly good, what was the purpose of doing it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I have a very expensive instrumentation that has unique capabilities. One of those is to separate out by masses. This is a tandem mass spectrometer. I can get much better separation using the mass spectrometer than I can the chromatography and I elected to use the chromatography for the introduction of the sample to the mass spectrometer or the first quadrupole.
MR. BLASIER: You introduce sample directly into the mass spec?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, you can.
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you again, was there a reason why you used the chromatography stage if you didn't really need to and it wasn't a particularly good method?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't say I didn't need to in this particular case. With EDTA it is needed for it to ionize, otherwise it would have to be derivatized. Using--you cannot do direct injection of EDTA through solid probe or you cannot do it through GC/MS. The technique that I had available was the LC/ms using electrospray.
MR. BLASIER: How much time did you spend designing the method that you were going to use in this case?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, that is difficult to determine. I mean, it includes twenty years' experience that I have with mass spectrometry, knowing all the things about the instruments, what is available, what will work, what won't work, it would be very difficult to put a time on how long it took to develop this procedure, because it encompasses twenty years' of experience or eighteen years' of experience with the instrumental technique. The actual hours performing the EDTA analysis was probably in the order of maybe a week would be a good estimation.
MR. BLASIER: And you had never done this kind of work before with EDTA, had you?
MR. MARTZ: No, I have never analyzed for EDTA in the past.
MR. BLASIER: And when you were requested to do this testing for the District Attorney, did you--was it your understanding that you had to develop a method that would work?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I wouldn't necessarily develop a method. The method is already developed for the identification using electrospray. All I had to do was identify a different chemical. There is no really method development.
MR. BLASIER: So you spent a week doing that?
MR. MARTZ: In order to get a procedure that was--was sensitive enough, in order to distinguish between a blood that was preserved with EDTA and blood that wasn't.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: By the way, is the method that you used--any of the methods that you used quantitative methods?
MR. MARTZ: I did not specifically use these methods to quantitate the amount of EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: So the purpose of the test, the way you at the time set it up, is it fair to say that what you were trying to do is just determine is EDTA there or isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: No. I was trying to determine whether or not the stain came from EDTA-preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: And the method you chose was a method that would identify it but not quantify it? Is that accurate?
MR. MARTZ: That would easily distinguish between whether or not it was preserved or non-preserved.
MR. BLASIER: Was your method designed to determine whether it was there or not, as opposed to telling you how much was there?
MR. MARTZ: No. My method was designed to determine whether or not it was preserved blood with EDTA.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you first chromatograms 1262-A and 1262-B. And do you recognize those?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: What are they?
MR. MARTZ: These were 50 part per million standards that I had run of EDTA on--I don't see the date here, but was this on the 22nd?
MR. BLASIER: Let me check.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I believe that was the 22nd.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have slide 1257-T, please, or I'm sorry, V.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Martz, would you look at the chart, please, and tell me if that accurately charts the ion count that you got for 50 parts per million on two separate runs on February 22nd?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, no, I don't think--I don't believe that it does.
MR. BLASIER: What is inaccurate about it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think a more accurate representation of ion count is the area and not the peak height.
MR. BLASIER: Does your electrospray method result in ionization that widely or fluctuates from a large extent from one test to the next?
MR. MARTZ: I think it would depend on which--what adjective did you use?
MR. BLASIER: I said "Wildly," but I will say to large extremes?
MR. MARTZ: It would depend on your definition of "Large extremes." It will fluctuate.
MR. BLASIER: So as I understand your testimony, you think that my chart is misleading because I have it based on ion counts?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you have it based on the peak height and not the peak area.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MARTZ: The area would be a better depiction of the ion count.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Is it misleading that way?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends on what you are trying to prove. If you want to say that the instrument fluctuates, you wouldn't use the peak height, you would use the peak area because it is a better representation of the total ion count.
MR. BLASIER: But looking at the peak height also demonstrates that it fluctuates quite a bit, doesn't it?
MR. MARTZ: It fluctuates quite a bit in peak height, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And would it be unusual, as we have here, as we have a seven-fold difference looking at the same thing, the same day?
MR. MARTZ: It depends. From injection to an injection it would be somewhat unusual, but at the beginning of the day versus the end of the day it may not be that unexpected. And again, if you really want a true depiction of the good fluctuation, you would want to look at the peak area; not the peak heights. And the areas--
MR. BLASIER: Does the peak height in your opinion bear any relationship to the quantity of EDTA that you are looking at?
MR. MARTZ: Not a very good one.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let me show you People's no. 541. Have you seen that chart before?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Can we put this on the elmo, please?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, this is a chart that you prepared, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: It is a chart based on ion count, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: It is based on the peak area, as I mentioned, that you should have done.
MR. BLASIER: Look on the left side of that. Can you see what the scale says?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: What does it say?
MR. MARTZ: Ion count. It is in peak area, which is the better way to depict the ion count.
MR. BLASIER: Why is the labeled "Ion count" if it is peak area?
MR. MARTZ: It is the ion count of the peak, the whole peak.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you agree that if you look at area or ion peak your method of electrospray causes--you would expect that it would cause substantial variation from one test to the next or could?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: That is not unusual, is it?
MR. MARTZ: It can happen.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I have a minute?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you Defense 1259-B and 1259-A. And ask if you recognize those?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. Those are runs that I had done on my question 206.
MR. BLASIER: And Q206 was what?
MR. MARTZ: I believe that was the sock.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide 1257-P, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, would you look at the monitor and tell us if that appears to be not to scale, but an accurate depiction of where you got Q206 from?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You never ran a test on that in the positive ion mode, the mode that we have been talking about, for Q207, did you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe I did. I only ran that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: And Q207, so--is it pair to say you made no estimate on Q207 as to how much blood might be on that?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, by looking at it, it appeared that it was covered with blood, but how much, other than it was covered, I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Now, why didn't you test Q207, which was from the large stain, in the positive ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Because I had tested it on the negative ion mode.
MR. BLASIER: You remember when we talked in Washington about a week and a half ago?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah.
MR. BLASIER: And do you recall my requesting you about Q207 about why you didn't test it?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember, to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember telling me that you didn't know what Q207 was?
MR. MARTZ: I did mention I didn't know what Q207 was at the time, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I have a photograph marked?
THE COURT: Yes. 1263.
MR. BLASIER: 1263.
(Deft's 1263 for id = letter)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Martz, could you take a look at 1263 and tell me if that is a picture of Q207?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I think that last document was 1263, a two-page letter.
THE COURT: Was never marked.
MR. BLASIER: No, it was marked, because I wrote it down.
THE COURT: It wasn't marked on the record, counsel.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. 1263 will be the letter and 1264 will be a photograph of Q207. 1263, what is the date on the letter, counsel?
MR. SCHECK: February 16, 1995.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Deft's 1264 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that?
MR. MARTZ: No.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain?
MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293.
MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1259-C.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: And could you tell was that is, please?
MR. MARTZ: That is A--the daughter ion spectrum or chromatogram that I had run for Q206.
MR. BLASIER: And let's put that on the elmo.
MR. BLASIER: When you run the full daughter, what is it that you are looking for?
MR. MARTZ: Well, in this particular case I'm looking for the 160 to be the base peak, the 293 to be the second largest peak and the 132 ion to be about a third the size of the parent ion, so I'm looking for three ions in certain ratios.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And one of those is the 132, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you have already detected the 160 in the parent ion and in this sample, have you not?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the range that you scan in looking for the 132 daughter ion with this chart?
MR. MARTZ: In this particular experiment I set up scanning mass 130 to mass 295.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you--were you following the analogy that we were talking about yesterday of a TV camera panning back and forth?
MR. MARTZ: Do I understand that analogy?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that a fair analogy?
MR. MARTZ: Sure, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that if you scan from 130 to--what did you say?
MR. MARTZ: 295.
MR. BLASIER: --to 295, you are looking for a lot of things other than 132?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree also that under that particular method it is--if 132 is there you are not going to be looking at it very much at all?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is relative. I mean, every 1.5 seconds I am looking at it for a considerable amount of time. It is all relative.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what selected reaction monitoring is?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: What is that?
MR. MARTZ: That is where you look for one ion coming from another ion.
MR. BLASIER: And is that more sensitive than the technique you used?
MR. MARTZ: It was similar to the first technique that I had used. It is certainly more sensitive than this technique that I use for the confirmation.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you were looking for the 160 daughter ion, the scans that you did were generally from what range to what range?
MR. MARTZ: I generally scan on two masses to either side; 158 to 162.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your experience that your machine drifts that much so that you need to have that wide a range?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, no. No, no. That is not the purpose for that at all.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MARTZ: Every now and then you will have what is called a dynamic mass spectrum where everything comes out and you will get every ion, so to avoid the possibility of a misinterpretation I scan on either side to ensure that the mass that comes out is the mass that I'm looking for. In other words, if mass 160 came out along with every other mass I wouldn't be able to distinguish that was the 160 only. I'm very interested in detecting 160 and no other ions, so I always scan on either side to ensure that a mistake is not made.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that you wind up with lower peaks than if you were scanning just at 160 and it happened to be at 160 where it is supposed to be?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So that particular method that you used, you sacrifice peak height for a little bit more range that you look at to make sure that you are not making a mistake?
MR. MARTZ: Well, for specificity you want to be correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And now, selected reaction monitoring is where you just look at 160, right?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, of those three methods, the full daughter that we had on the chart, scanning a range two to either side of 132, or selected reaction monitoring, that is looking just at 132, which is the least likely to find 132?
MR. MARTZ: The full scan.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you decided that you wanted to determine whether the 132 was present in what you found from the blood on the back--on the sock, why did you pick the method that was the least likely to find it?
MR. MARTZ: Because it is the most or the best way to positively identify a chemical. You've got to remember here you don't want to misidentify a chemical. If I identify something, I want to identify it to the exclusion of all other chemicals, and for me to do that I have to do this experiment.
MR. BLASIER: Were you interested in finding out whether the 132 was present?
MR. MARTZ: Of course I was.
MR. BLASIER: And of the three methods we described, you used the one that was least likely to find this, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I agree with that. I mean, my purpose was to identify a chemical and this is the only means that I had to identify that chemical, and that is why I selected that particular--it had nothing to do with sensitivity. This is what I need to do to identify a chemical.
MR. BLASIER: When you say that is the only means you had to identify the 132 ion--
MR. MARTZ: To identify EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Was that the only method you had to identify the 132 method that you knew would be there if it was EDTA?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is argumentative and also calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Could you repeat that question?
MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure I can.
THE COURT: Was this the only method that you had to identify the 132 ion that you knew would be there.
MR. BLASIER: That was it?
MR. MARTZ: There is many methods to identify a 132 ion. This is not the only way to identify a 132 ion, I would agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever run a scan that looked at two sides from 130 to 134 to try and find the 132 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever use selected reaction monitoring to look just at the 132 to see how much might be there?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1260-A and 1260-B. I show you 1260-A and 1260-B and ask you to tell us what those are.
MR. MARTZ: Those were analysis that I had done from the stain from the gate, my Q204.
MR. BLASIER: And using the positive ion mode that we have been talking about, you looked for that twice?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Hold on to that. Now, it is your understanding that this stain came from a bloodstain found on the back gate in Nicole brown Simpson's condominium?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Numbered 117?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: May we have 1257-T.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, would you agree that the chart on the screen accurately portrays the two tests, the two positive ion tests that you did of the stain, the blood from the stain from the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that you identified peaks in those two charts?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know if the word is "Identify peaks." I found two peaks.
MR. BLASIER: You found?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And by the way, the retention time on these two charts and the retention time on the sock charts, are they consistent also with EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the two charts that are up on the screen from the gate demonstrate the presence of the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that those charts--that what you found in those charts is consistent with the presence of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever in these two samples look for the 132 daughter ion using a scan of 130 to 134?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever, with these two samples, look for the daughter ion by doing selected reaction monitoring, that is, looking just at 132?
MR. MARTZ: No.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we go back to the elmo and I would like to mark another picture.
THE COURT: 1265.
(Deft's 1265 for id = photograph)
THE COURT: This is a photo of what, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: It is a photo of the sock.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you what has been marked 1265, Defense exhibit, and could you tell was that is?
MR. MARTZ: That is a picture that I took of the sock when I received it in the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Could we put this on the elmo, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in a little more on that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, can you look at your monitor. Is that an accurate picture of the sock after you did your cutting?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, it is a little difficult to see on the big screen, but could you direct the arrow to the part that you cut out yourself?
MR. MARTZ: Down, a little bit more. Right there, (Indicating). Right there, (Indicating).
MR. BLASIER: Now, that is what you called Q206, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the hole there is where Q207 came from; is that right?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you examine--did you examine the sock to determine the outer edge of the bloodstain that had been in that area?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And did your cutting there go past the outer edge?
MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.
MR. BLASIER: So it is your understanding or your recollection that the bloodstain came out further than the edge of your cutting?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we go back to 1257-P.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: 1257-P again.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this is what you were just describing as the cut-out on the sock that you made?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Except turned upside down?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you do any testing at all to determine whether there was more blood in Q207 or less blood than there was in Q206?
MR. MARTZ: No.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate, Agent Martz, that--let's assume hypothetically that Q207 had more blood in it than Q206. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if that stain had been made with EDTA blood that you would likely find more of it in Q207 than Q206 if Q207 had more blood in it?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Improper hypothetical and assuming facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Well, when you are trying to detect EDTA, would you agree that the amount you are likely to detect, if it is there, is going to be dependent on how much you start with in your testing?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And if you start with less blood that has EDTA in it, would you agree that you are likely to find or have a lower likelihood of finding EDTA than if you had a larger quantity of blood with EDTA in it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, certainly it would depend on the size we are talking about. If we are talking very small differences, you may or may not, but if we are talking large differences, then you will find differences.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Did you do any testing whatsoever to determine whether the amounts of blood in the sock--let me rephrase. Did you do any testing to determine whether the concentration of blood in that large stain varied from the outer edge to the center?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Impossible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Well, I didn't even have the center, so it would have been a difficult test to determine.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you had Q207, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Right, but that still isn't the center.
MR. BLASIER: If you wanted to you could have extracted the blood from Q207 and compared it to Q206, couldn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I saw no reason to, but I certainly could have done it.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Well, is the reason that you didn't do that is because you didn't know what Q207 was?
MR. MARTZ: 207, I didn't know exactly what it was. That is why the first day I combined 207 and 206 and treated them as the same, because I didn't know the origin of 207.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, do you agree that in order for EDTA to be detected in your method, it must be water soluble?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: In other words, a compound that might have the same molecular weight and the same daughter ions as EDTA, if it wasn't water soluble, you wouldn't be able to measure it under your system?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends, too. I mean, when you are talking about parts per million, parts per billion, in literature a lot of time they will report things as not soluble in water and yet in reality you can identify things and trace quantity. It would depend on the individual chemical.
MR. BLASIER: But it would have to be water soluble, wouldn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, when you are talking parts per billion or million, and you are talking about a complex mixture, we put in solution things that literature says that are insoluble in water and identified them. I mean--
MR. BLASIER: There are a lot of things that aren't soluble in water, too?
MR. MARTZ: When they say soluble, in referring--they are not referring to parts per million, parts per billion.
MR. BLASIER: There are a lot of things?
MR. MARTZ: There are a lot of things that are not listed as not soluble in water that will dissolve in water.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that for a compound to have the characteristics of EDTA that you found it would also have to be heat stable?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know--it depends on your definition of heat stable. It is--
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what that term means?
MR. MARTZ: Well, yeah, but what heat? Are we talking about? Are we talking about a hundred degrees, 500 degrees, a thousand degrees? I don't understand--I mean, that is a broad term.
MR. BLASIER: Must the chemical that you are looking at, in order it to--to go through your system, be soluble in the specific mobile phase, that is, the liquid that you use to send it through the column?
MR. MARTZ: It certainly helps.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, have you run tests on any other compound, other than EDTA, that gives you the results you got in this case for the gate and the sock; namely, the retention time that you got, the presence of the parent ion, the presence of the daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I ran in other chemicals with this testing.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever tested, in the course of your 17 year's experience with mass spectrometry, any chemical that has those characteristics other than EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know right offhand.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any that you have run that have those characteristics?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't think that I have.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you have in the--I think yesterday been attempting to find some compound that might look like this?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I have been attempting to find--locate other chemicals that could possibly give similar results, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you handed me a picture of a chemical this morning?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me have this marked next.
THE COURT: 1267--1266.
MR. BLASIER: 1266?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Deft's 1266 for id = chart)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1266. Is that a chart that you handed me this morning?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And what is that for?
MR. MARTZ: It is a mass spectrum of a chemical.
MR. BLASIER: What is it called?
MR. MARTZ: Benfluralin.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any idea what it is?
MR. MARTZ: I believe it is an environmental contaminant.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know?
MR. MARTZ: That is what I was told on the phone this morning. I don't have any other knowledge other than that.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know where it is found?
MR. MARTZ: Evidently in the environment.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know where in the environment?
THE COURT: How about if you spell it for the--
MR. MARTZ: B-E-N-F-L-U-R-A-L-I-N.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know where in the environment?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: And what is the parent ion for that compound?
MR. MARTZ: 335.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you haven't tested that compound to see if it looks like EDTA, have you?
MR. MARTZ: Today is the first time I have seen this chemical.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the mass spec that was generated there was done with a different method from your electrospray; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What method was used?
MR. MARTZ: This is the standard electron impact ionization.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any way of knowing, without estimating whether if you have run the same tests on that, whatever it is, that you would get the same pattern as EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: I have no way of knowing other than testing. The purpose for this chemical is it had some properties similar to EDTA in its mass spectrum, but the only way to prove whether or not it would give the same result or not would be to actually analyze the chemical.
MR. BLASIER: Once you got the results that you got in this case in February did you make any effort to find some compound other than EDTA that would account for what you found on the back gate and the socks?
MR. MARTZ: No.
THE COURT: 10:30.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall the testimony yesterday about the EPA documents that were presented by Miss Clark to Dr. Rieders?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 12--I'm sorry, People's 537. Is that the reference that you are thinking of?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that is not an article, is it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: It is a description of what--of an article?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And where did that article appear?
MR. MARTZ: In the Brit Veterinarian Journal, I believe.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, which?
MR. MARTZ: The--
MR. BLASIER: Do you know which journal?
MR. MARTZ: It is Brit, so I don't know if it is the British or the Britain, but "Vet" is evidently veterinarian and "J" is obviously journal.
MR. BLASIER: Did you recall yesterday Miss Clark asking Dr. Rieders questions about that document as it relates to the maximum daily allowance of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know if it necessarily had to do with maximum daily allowance or what you would expect to find in a person. I think it was more relating to how much you would expect to find in a person's blood.
MR. BLASIER: Does that abstract indicate that you would expect to find 2000 parts per million in anybody's blood?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: And umm--
MR. MARTZ: It states that it should not exceed 2000 parts per million.
MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?
MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?
MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.
MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?
MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, I want to ask you about EDTA that you might expect in your blood from food. And you have provided us several articles that you found related to that topic, have you not?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you an article--can we have this marked, I'm sorry, 1260--
THE CLERK: 7.
MR. BLASIER: 1267.
THE CLERK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(Deft's 1267 for id = article)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1267. Do you recall Miss Clark yesterday mentioning the figure of 50 milligrams per day as a possible amount of EDTA that someone might take into their system?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is that the article that that came from?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you just give us the name of that article.
MR. MARTZ: It is the "Food iron absorption in man. The effect of EDTA on absorption of dietary non-heme iron."
MR. BLASIER: Now, you also were shown yesterday some excerpts from the code of federal regulations. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could we--I don't have the exhibit number on this one, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: I found it.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I show you People's 539. Take a look at that again. Is that the document that describes what the FDA says is the allowable maximum amounts of EDTA in food preservatives or food substances?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And I would like to put that on the elmo again. Now, this is a document that you provided to us as well, is it not?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, it is your understanding that the 50 milligram per day figure that is in that article that you provided to us was based on what the FDA says are the maximum levels of EDTA you can put in food?
MR. MARTZ: I would say that had most of the basis for it, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we move that up just a little bit, Mr. Harris.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this regulation talks about parts per million, 220 parts per million, 33 parts per million. That bears no relationship to parts per million in food, does it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: That is what you can put in the food?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That then gets eaten and greatly diluted?
MR. MARTZ: Right, yes, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you also provided us a study from 1954 concerning the metabolism of EDTA in humans, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't think it primarily dealt with metabolism. It was an article about EDTA being injected in humans. I think--
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MARTZ: --I think they did mention it was not metabolized, but I don't think that was the purpose of the article.
MR. BLASIER: Right. This was an article that you provided to us?
MR. MARTZ: Right, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And an article that you relied upon in forming your opinions in this case?
MR. MARTZ: No, I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, it is an article that you reviewed and we have discussed, haven't we?
MR. MARTZ: It is an article reviewed. I reviewed many articles on EDTA. That was one of them.
MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding as to the body of literature on EDTA, such as it is, in terms of how much EDTA that you eat in food actually gets into your blood?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, it is unclear. The best is that paper there from 1954, but even in that paper it mentions some data which is conflicting and there hasn't been a whole lot of data since then. Most of the other papers even today refer back to that paper in 1954. I believe it is not well-known.
MR. BLASIER: What does this paper say?
MR. MARTZ: In that one, the absorption?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MARTZ: It says five percent is absorbed.
MR. BLASIER: There is other literature that says that as well; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: I think all the other literature is based on that, to my knowledge. There is no other independent study that I could find.
MR. BLASIER: Well, what is--you provided us some other literature that says the same thing, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, yes. I mean, it was mentioned in a lot of articles that that was the absorption, I agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Did you provide us with some excerpts from a textbook called "The pharmacological basis of therapeutics by Goodman and Gilmans?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that an accepted text in the field of pharmacology?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What does that indicate in terms of the absorption of EDTA that you take in by mouth into the blood?
MR. MARTZ: I assume it says five percent.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, would you like to look at that to confirm it?
MR. MARTZ: No I'm sure it says five percent.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when we talk about absorption into the blood, when you eat something, it doesn't just go into the blood, does it?
MR. MARTZ: No, no.
MR. BLASIER: What happens to it in the stomach in terms of how it gets to the blood versus how it gets excreted in other ways?
MR. MARTZ: Well, we are trailing a little bit out of my field, but certainly in order to survive things have to be absorbed into the blood stream. If you eat everything and nothing gets absorbed, you are going to die.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the studies indicate, the `54 study indicates that the vast majority, ninety percent or more of the EDTA that you might eat gets excreted through the feces and never gets to the blood, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That is what that one paper showed, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When we talk about a five percent absorption rate, we are talking about of the, let's say, of the 50 milligrams that a person might eat in a day, only five percent of that actually gets into the blood at some point?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Approximately two and a half milligrams, according to that paper.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that paper also talks about when it gets into the blood stream that it also gets into other extracellular fluid, in other words, other fluid in the body, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the total volume approximately of this other fluid in the body is what?
MR. MARTZ: I think the paper there may have used forty liters. It would depend of course on the size of the individual, so that would be probably an average.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that it is a relatively easy calculation to figure out if you had 2.5 milligrams in forty liters how much parts per million, billion or whatever that is?
MR. MARTZ: Right, yeah.
MR. BLASIER: What is that figure?
MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sixty parts per billion, approximately. Approximately sixty parts per billion.
MR. BLASIER: We are talking in the range of parts per billion rather than parts per million, correct?
MR. MARTZ: According to this study, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, under that set of conditions that I just described to you, that assumes, does it not, that whatever gets absorbed into the blood is all there at the time that you take the measurement?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, what does the literature indicate in terms of how quickly EDTA that does get into the blood stream gets out of the blood stream?
MR. MARTZ: Well, its half-life is very short. It leaves the blood stream very quickly, according to that paper.
MR. BLASIER: Are we talking in terms of minutes or hours?
MR. MARTZ: I think it is hours.
MR. BLASIER: Would you like to look at that article to refresh your memory?
(Brief pause.)
MR. MARTZ: Its half-life would be an hour.
MR. BLASIER: And by "Half-life" does that mean that once this, let's say, sixty parts per billion gets into your system, one hour later there is only going to be half as much?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And one hour after that there is going to be half again as much?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So that it is quickly very quickly eliminated from the system?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct. That is according to that paper in 1954.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present.
MR. BLASIER: Well, when you say a lot of conflicting information, what conflicting information are you talking about?
MR. MARTZ: Well, conflicting information with iron studies, the fact that it indicates that more is absorbed than the five percent.
MR. BLASIER: What paper says that?
MR. MARTZ: This particular paper here, the last paragraph.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have that in front of you?
MR. MARTZ: Second to last paragraph.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have that in front of you?
MR. MARTZ: No. You took it back from me, I think.
MR. BLASIER: I think I did.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Is that what you are referring to, (Indicating)?
MR. MARTZ: Right, yes, exactly. Would you like me to read it?
MR. BLASIER: Let me put it on the elmo and then you can read it.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Perhaps we should mark this.
THE COURT: 1268.
MR. BLASIER: 1268.
THE COURT: 1268 and we will wind it up with this one.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Wind it up.
(Deft's 1268 for id = article)
MR. BLASIER: Now, the paragraph you are referring to is the one that has the little asterisk in front of it; is that correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you read this.
MR. MARTZ: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the findings that material"--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Could we ask Mr. Martz to speak into the microphone. I can't hear.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MARTZ: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the finding that the material is effective by that route in accelerating the excretion of yttrium and lead. There is no satisfactorily readily apparent explanation at the present time" or "At this present time."
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that what that says is that EDTA is able to help remove yttrium and lead from the blood very quickly?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, well, yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is another indication?
MS. CLARK: Objection. It does not say "Very quickly." Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Is that a fair characterization, what I just said?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't agree with you a hundred percent on that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But there is no data there, is there?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: And that doesn't say that EDTA is absorbed more than five percent in blood, does it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it kind of implies that to me.
MR. BLASIER: It doesn't say that, does it?
MR. MARTZ: It doesn't say that.
MR. BLASIER: What it says is it is very effective of getting things out of the blood quickly?
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. MARTZ: The only way to get it out of the blood is to get it into the blood first of all.
MR. BLASIER: And then get it out quickly?
MR. MARTZ: It is a chelating blood. Once it goes in the blood it chelates and gets in the body and will be excreted.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for fifteen minutes. And Agent Martz, you can step down and we will be back in fifteen minutes.
(Recess.)
(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. Let's have the jury, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Special agent market is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, at the break did I ask you to take a look at those 250 parts per million to compare the areas as you indicated?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What is the difference in the areas of the 250 parts per million charts that you ran on the 22nd?
MR. MARTZ: It is about a four-fold difference.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You agree that the 50 parts per million, you knew that that is exactly what it was because you had prepared known EDTA in that concentration to put in your machine?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And when you put it through the second time and got a four-fold difference in your area output, it was still the same, 50 parts per million?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the substance that you found that had the consistent retention time, the parent ion and the daughter ion, that in your opinion the quantities that you found are in the parts per million range?
MR. MARTZ: That would be the most, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Which is--correct me if I am wrong--a thousand times more than the parts per billion range?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the technique that you used at the beginning of your testing. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you got the stains in this case, when you got Q206 and Q207--actually, you assigned those numbers, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Well, they were actually assigned by special agent Doug Deedrick.
MR. BLASIER: That is an FBI; not an LAPD number?
MR. MARTZ: Right. That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: When you got those samples, did I hear you say this morning that you mixed those two together for your first series of tests?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you did not know what Q207 was?
MR. MARTZ: I knew it was from the sock and obviously it was blood-stained, but I didn't specifically know that it was cut out of that area. I mean, it was logical to assume that, but I didn't know that for a fact.
MR. BLASIER: So you, as part of the first steps of your tests, combined two unknown samples, the source of which you didn't know?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I knew they were both from the sock and I knew they were both bloodstains from the sock and my object was to determine whether or not there was EDTA present on the sock, so I combined the two to see whether or not EDTA was present on either of those particular cuttings and I took that into account by using twice as much of that particular sample as I did from the control that I prepared.
MR. BLASIER: So you used twice as much in that run and that was using A--the negative ion mode that we talked about a little bit this morning?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: The less sensitive testing?
MR. MARTZ: The one that is much more specific. In this particular case it was less sensitive, but you got to remember here it has a lot more specificity and that is why I used it again. Negative ion mass spec is a very sensitive technique and in order to identify the EDTA present it has to react with iron. EDTA is a chelating agent. So I wanted to use a very specific test and that is why I chose that test on that day, because I not only had to have a compound with a particular molecular weight, it had to react with iron in order to give these results. And the only ones that gave results on that particular day were the controls that I prepared.
MR. BLASIER: Now, but--but you determined yourself by your own experimentation that that was one/tenth as sensitive as the positive ion moved that we have been talking about?
MR. MARTZ: It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?
MR. MARTZ: It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: There was not EDTA present in the amount that you would find in preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Agent--
MR. MARTZ: I proved that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: I was not able to identify any EDTA on those stains.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. In my opinion EDTA was not present on those stains.
MR. BLASIER: All right. When you did your testing the next day with a positive ion mode and found what looks like EDTA, where do you think it came from?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you got to remember here, everyone is saying that I founded EDTA. I have never said that and I don't believe Dr. Rieders ever said that. There was indication that EDTA could have been present. There is a lot of other explanations for the ions that I got on the first day. I am not convinced that EDTA is present on that sock and I want to make that perfectly clear. There are many possibilities for those ion counts that I got. One is it could be from another compound that had similar results. That is why I performed the daughter ion experiment, to determine whether or not EDTA was present. I was convinced that EDTA was not present in those samples.
MR. BLASIER: So you had made up your mind as to what you were going to find before you did the test?
MR. MARTZ: That is not correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MARTZ: I was asked to determine whether or not those bloodstains came from preserved blood and those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood. I was able to prove that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: What you saw in that bloodstain, both bloodstains the second day, you didn't see the first day, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No. It was a completely different technique as I mentioned. In the negative ion mode the EDTA must react with iron.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--
MR. MARTZ: The second day when I ran the test all I was looking for was a 293 ion and a 162. Iron was not a factor.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. MARTZ: So the possibility exists--
THE COURT: Hold on. Next question.
MR. BLASIER: Agent, did you add anything to the samples from day one to day two?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you added EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: No, I added water.
MR. BLASIER: Did you add--does water give you a pattern like EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: As I told you, I did not identify EDTA in any of the samples on any day.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Lets talk in terms of the 293 parent ion which EDTA has and the 160 daughter ion which EDTA had. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you add anything that had a parent ion of 293 and a daughter ion of 160 between day one and day two?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't quite understand that question. Of course I didn't, but the fact of the matter is on the first day I didn't even look for these ions.
MR. BLASIER: Well your Honor, I move to strike everything except "Of course I didn't."
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken as being nonresponsive.
MR. BLASIER: Are you saying that that 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion weren't there the first day?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't look for them the first day.
MR. BLASIER: Then you don't now whether they were there or not, do you?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is difficult to determine if I didn't look for them.
MR. BLASIER: The second day you found them, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: The second day--
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Did you find them the second day?
MR. MARTZ: I detected both ion 162 and 293 on the second day because the experiment that I performed looked for those various ions.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you this: Is your reason for saying that what you found, even though it has consistent retention time, consistent parent ion, consistent daughter ion, that the reason you are unwilling to say that that is EDTA is because you couldn't find the 132 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: No, I didn't say that at all. The reason that I'm saying that it is not EDTA is several-fold. I conducted many experiments over several days. The first day I looked for EDTA in the negative ion mode. It was not present. On another day, the 28th, I looked for EDTA on another test in HPLC which was completely different testing than any of the other days. EDTA was not present on the sock or on the gate, so I have two tests that showed no EDTA is present. I have another test on another day which has ions that are similar or the same as EDTA. In order for me to identify EDTA, I have to have what's called a full daughter spectrum. When you just looked at several ions, you can make mistakes. Those mistakes have been made and because mistakes like that have been made, procedures have been changed. In order for me to positively identify a chemical to the exclusion of all others I need to have a full daughter spectrum, and in order to do that I have to set the scan, the instruments the way that I did. I was not able to identify EDTA in those particular stains.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you agree that you did detect at the appropriate retention time the 293 parent ion, the 160 daughter ion on day two?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you are making a great deal of the retention time.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You found that, didn't you, 293, the 160, at the appropriate retention time?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Have you identified anything other than EDTA?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That assumes a fact not in evidence and contrary to the testimony that it is an appropriate retention time, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Have you determined any compound--have you located or identified any compound other than EDTA that accounts for your findings?
MR. MARTZ: I was just faxed another copy of another chromatogram that could possibly give similar results that I just got several minutes ago.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you know what that is?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. I can get it for you if you would like.
MR. BLASIER: What is it?
MR. MARTZ: It is a steroid type chemical--it is right there.
MR. BLASIER: What method was used to perform this chromatography or mass spec?
MR. MARTZ: Well, that particular chromatography was probably gas chromatography and the mass spec type was electron impact.
MR. BLASIER: So that is a different method also, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Well--
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a different method?
MR. MARTZ: Well, because mass spectrometry is a technique that I used for ions and that is mass spectrometry and you can make certain assumptions in mass spectrometry when you are dealing with ions. We are dealing with two ions here. That is not very many. This particular compound and many other compounds will have those two ions.
MR. BLASIER: When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looks like EDTA, did you advise the Prosecution of what you had found?
MR. MARTZ: I had prepared a report, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And by the way, in your report--well, let me rephrase. How soon after you got the charts that we have seen here with the peaks at the appropriate times, parent and daughter ion, did you tell the Prosecution that you had found that?
MR. MARTZ: Umm--
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, again object to the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sometime the end of February, early March. I don't have the exact date.
MR. BLASIER: Did they ever ask you to try and find what that might be, other than EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: No. I mean, it was not necessary because I had already answered the question, the fact that those stains did not come from preserved blood. There was no reason to try to determine what those ions came from.
MR. BLASIER: But from February until this morning or last night, you haven't tried to find a compound that explains your findings, have you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have, because I believe that my data has been misinterpreted by somebody else and I wanted to prove that.
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you some questions about your--oh, incidentally, you said that you used twice as much on day one of the Q206/Q207 mixture than you used the next day?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So you used half as much sample when you used the more sensitive test?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I--in every case that I did this--
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You used half as much with the more sensitive test?
MR. MARTZ: I used half as much of the 206 versus 207 on the 22nd as I did on the 19th.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if there had been EDTA in your mixture of Q206 and Q207 there would be one-half as much in the test that you ran the next day, the more sensitive test?
MR. MARTZ: Not necessarily. I mean, as we have mentioned, the quantitation is not perfect on this instrument and I did not design this technique to precisely quantitate how much EDTA was present or if wasn't present. I was trying to determine whether it was there or not from preserved blood, so twice as much would not make that much of a difference in the results that I got.
MR. BLASIER: Did you run any experiments with different amounts--well, let me rephrase that. Would you agree that in order to make any kind of an assessment of concentration of how much you get at the end of the process, you have to know how much you start with?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, sure, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the evidence that you received--let's talk about the back gate first. That was in the form of what?
MR. MARTZ: It was blood that was I guess a cotton swab or some type of a gauze material was used to absorb the blood off of the back gate.
MR. BLASIER: Well, do you know--do you know how that was taken off the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: No, I don't know, but logically it had to have been dissolved in order to be--
MR. BLASIER: Did you--
MR. MARTZ: --saturated onto the cloth material.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out how that had been removed from the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you think that the in manner which it was removed from the back gate might have some influence on how much blood actually got onto that?
MR. MARTZ: It was my opinion that that was very saturated, that piece of gauze. It was a very saturated bloodstain on that piece of gauze.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, were you concerned about the fact that different methods of removing that stain might result in different amounts of blood?
MR. MARTZ: No. The only thing I was concerned about is whether or not the bloodstain was larger than the material that was collected, because I was using my technique by the size of the bloodstain and--
MR. BLASIER: Did it come to you--
MR. MARTZ: Can I continue answering the question?
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. MARTZ: And I wanted to be satisfied that the bloodstain was at least as large as that cotton swab. And by asking, I was able to determine that the bloodstain was larger than the cotton swab itself and that was my main concern.
MR. BLASIER: By asking?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. I had asked how large the bloodstain was and I was told that it was larger than the cotton swab.
MR. BLASIER: How large what bloodstain was?
MR. MARTZ: On the gate.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how much of that bloodstain had been removed and put on whatever you got it on?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you get it on a swab or on a swatch?
MR. MARTZ: It was a very small swatch.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how many other swatches had been made from that blood drop?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not. I didn't feel it was necessary. When I looked at that blood swatch I could see that it was thoroughly saturated with blood and that was my concern.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a spectrophotometer in your lab?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable means of determining how much you might have of blood in a solution?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is an acceptable means I think of determining how much hemoglobin is present and from that you could possibly calculate how much blood was present.
MR. BLASIER: Did you use any method at all, other than just looking at it, to try and tell how much blood was in this swatch?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What?
MR. MARTZ: I did a visual examination also of the extract after I extracted the blood with the water and I got a very intense red color, which indicated to me that it was concentrated blood, and also I did a testing to prove that it was--or to indicate that it was blood.
MR. BLASIER: Did the testing that you did, does that establish quantity at all?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think it does somewhat. I mean, I could visually see the blood on the swatch and I could visually see the color of the extract that I performed.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?
MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Did I understand you to say that you weren't concerned with the quantity of blood that you got on the swatch?
MR. MARTZ: I was concerned with the quantity. I wanted to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas and I was convinced that I did. I was concerned, but even if there was a mistake of one, two, fifty, a hundred percent, I mean, I would still be able to answer the question whether it was from preserved blood or non-preserved blood. I was concerned. Yes, I was concerned.
MR. BLASIER: Did you perform any tests, other than just looking at it, that was designed to find out how much blood was in the swatch that you started with?
MR. MARTZ: I did a presumptive test on the blood and I got similar colors which would indicate I had similar concentrations of blood.
MR. BLASIER: What presumptive test did you use?
MR. MARTZ: I used the phenolphthalein.
MR. BLASIER: Is that considered a quantitative test for blood?
MR. MARTZ: I mean not necessarily, but you do have a color reaction just like you have a color of blood. And everything I did, I did to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the stain from the sock, did you do any kind of testing on that, other than looking at it to determine how much blood you got from the sock?
MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned earlier, yes, I did other tests.
MR. BLASIER: Anything other than what you've already told us?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you examine the swatch material that you got on the back gate under the microscope?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: The sample that you prepared, your known samples from the reference tubes that we looked at, where did you get the swatches to do this?
MR. MARTZ: Well, on the sock, I actually cut a piece off of the sock because I wanted to use the same type of material, so what I had was a bloodstain on the sock, so I took the person's blood--
THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Agent Martz, the question was from the reference tubes where did you get the swatches to do this; not the sock?
MR. MARTZ: Well, that is the answer, your Honor. I took the sock. That is what I used.
MR. BLASIER: Okay, for the sock reference. How about for the gate reference what did you use?
MR. MARTZ: Well, as I was explaining, I wanted to try to make things equal, so for the stain that I produced for the sock, I took a piece of the sock. I took some of the blood of Nicole brown, which was the one suspected or the one identified as being on the sock. I placed blood onto that sock. I let it dry naturally.
THE COURT: All right. Agent Martz, the question was what did you do to prepare the sample for the gate? Not the sock; the gate?
MR. MARTZ: Okay. For the gate I took a similar type of cotton swatch in the laboratory and placed blood onto that swatch.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't use a swatch that came from LAPD?
MR. MARTZ: No. It was--it was too small. In order to put a bloodstain onto a fabric and let it dry naturally, I was using ten microliters of blood. I needed a better size swatch. The size that they submitted to me was not large enough to do that particular test.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your opinion that the amount of blood in a swatch is not determined by the kind of swatch--let me rephrase that. Is it your opinion that if you used a swatch, let's say that had four layers of gauze rather than two, that it is still going to hold the same amount of blood?
MR. MARTZ: I tried to use the same type of swatch that was used in the particular case is all I can say. Whether it is two or four layers, it would make a difference as to how much it would absorb.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you ever examine the swatch you got from LAPD to determine under the microscope what kind of a swatch it was, how many layers were there?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever look at your own swatch that you got from your lab to determine how many layers were in that swatch?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you recall--well, let me ask you this: Your eyeball estimate or the way that you did this, what was your estimate of how much blood was on the gate swatch?
MR. MARTZ: I did not estimate the amount of mood on that. What I did was to take a swatch of the same amount and prepared it similarly. I did not attempt to determine how much blood was on the swatch except for the fact that the swatch appeared to be saturated with blood.
MR. BLASIER: So then you made no effort to determine how much blood was there?
MR. MARTZ: Well, visually I looked at it and the swatch was saturated with blood. Like if you were bleeding and would put something to it, it would absorb the blood. The swatch absorbed the blood. It appeared to be saturated with blood.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember me asking that question when we visited together in Washington?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically. I'm sure you did, but I can't remember specifically my answer.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember telling me that you estimated the amount of blood from the back gate as two microliters?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember that, but it would be at least--I would say it was somewhere between two and five microliters would be my best guesstimate.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember me asking the same question about how much blood was on the sock stain that you cut?
MR. MARTZ: I think I may have answered that. Was it 800 microliters, 200? I can't remember.
MR. BLASIER: 50 microliters?
MR. MARTZ: 50 microliters.
MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.
MR. BLASIER: Let's assume hypothetically that 50 microliters of blood is one to two drops. Do you have that assumption in mind?
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Your opinion is that there was one to two drops of blood on the cutting from the sock that you took?
MR. MARTZ: Not that I took. I'm talking about the whole area of the sock that was stained. Probably 50 microliters. The area that I took was probably a couple microliters.
MR. BLASIER: When you told me 50 microliters on that cutting, you misunderstood what I was asking?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah. I was talking about the full stain.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you--you came up with a process that you used to extract the blood and EDTA, if there is any EDTA, from the swatch, correct, and from the sock cutting?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What method was that?
MR. MARTZ: EDTA and blood are both very soluble in water, so I extracted the materials with 25 microliters of water, let them sit for approximately 40, 45 minutes, and they were in a tube which is designed to filter out a lot of the components of blood to clean up the extract a little bit as blood contains a lot of chemicals. And then I centrifuged it for maybe five or ten minutes and the liquid past through the filter and it was collected on the bottom of the tube and that is what I used for analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Were you trying to remove all the blood from the evidence?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean I--I tried to remove as much as possible. The instrument, the way that it is set up, can take care of, you know, a very complex dirty sample, but if you shoot too much in you can clog up the system and cause excess damage to the instrument, so I tried to clean it up as much as possible.
MR. BLASIER: Did you intentionally not try to remove all the blood from the swatch?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I thought you--
MR. BLASIER: Did you misunderstand?
MR. MARTZ: I may have misunderstood your question.
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you again.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Did you try to remove all the blood from the swatch, the evidence swatch and the sock cutting that you made?
MR. MARTZ: I treated everything the same. All I tried to do was remove the EDTA. I wasn't concerned too much with the blood. I wanted to remove EDTA from the bloodstain was my purpose.
MR. BLASIER: Can I take it that you are saying, no, you didn't try to remove all the blood?
MR. MARTZ: I mean, I--all I did was try to remove the EDTA from the stain for analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you tried to get all the EDTA out of there?
MR. MARTZ: Exactly, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And did you have any testing done to determine whether that method that you devised was effective in removing all the EDTA from a bloodstain like the ones you used?
MR. MARTZ: I determined that was effective to remove EDTA from my analysis to determine whether or not the bloodstain came from a preserved tube or non-preserved tube.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: --did you do any testing to determine whether your system that you devised efficiently removed all of the EDTA from the evidence?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't feel that this was necessary. All I felt was necessary was to remove the EDTA for analysis. It didn't make any difference if I got 99.9 percent of the EDTA or a hundred percent of the EDTA. I removed enough EDTA for the analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Did it make any difference whether you got sixty percent of it?
MR. MARTZ: It probably wouldn't have, no.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't trying to get all of the EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Certainly I was trying to get it all out.
MR. BLASIER: Didn't you have some tests or weren't some validation studies performed at Quantico to answer that very question at how good your method was of pulling the EDTA out of the evidence if it was there?
MR. MARTZ: If it was, I didn't understand that that was part of what they were doing.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me show you a couple of charts.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have these marked as--what are we up to?
THE CLERK: 1269.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, 1269?
THE CLERK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: 1269-A and B.
(Deft's 1269-A & B for id = charts)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you review the validation materials that Quantico prepared for you?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not. They were not prepared for me.
MR. BLASIER: Who asked Quantico to do a validation study to validate your method?
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. BLASIER: Well, did anybody--
MR. MARTZ: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: They did this on their own? You are aware they did it, aren't you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When did they do this validation study?
MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I don't know the specific time. I think it was before I had done any of my tests or it may have been about the same time. I really don't know, to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. BLASIER: Was that validation study done in connection with this case?
MR. MARTZ: I believe the way they got involved is they were going to determine whether or not EDTA could be detected in trace quantities or in bloodstains to differentiate preserved from non-preserved blood. They were asked to do this and they were going to devise a procedure which then could be given to a laboratory to do the analysis. When this was all happening, it was determined that we would also try at headquarters to do the analysis ourselves, so I took it upon myself to do some preliminary tests and determined that I could do EDTA analysis. Quantico's testing was done to determine whether or not a procedure could be developed to give to another laboratory to do the testing.
MR. BLASIER: Can we put that down as a yes, that their validation study was for purposes of this case?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
MR. MARTZ: Well, you would have to ask them.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask them?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically, no.
MR. BLASIER: You weren't interested in any of the work they did validating this methodology that you are using?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative.
MR. MARTZ: Well--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MARTZ: It depends on--
THE COURT: Wait. Sustained.
MR. MARTZ: Oh.
MR. BLASIER: What is the purpose of a validation study?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think I did my own validation study and I think the purpose of it--
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained. Answer stricken.
MR. BLASIER: What is the purpose of a validation study?
MR. MARTZ: To determine whether or not a procedure works.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that that is what your research people at Quantico did?
MR. MARTZ: They produced something that they called a validation study. I know that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And is it your testimony that you never looked at it?
MR. MARTZ: I never looked at it, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, during the lunch break would you--could you review that for us because I want to ask you some questions about it?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I don't see any purpose for it, to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me show you 1269-A and B. And for the record, 1269-A is discovery page 8419 and 1269-B is 8422. Will you look at those. Are those chromatograms?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, they are.
MR. BLASIER: Do they appear to be generated by the FBI?
MR. MARTZ: I would--I would not know that.
MR. BLASIER: Is that format used by the FBI?
MR. MARTZ: This is a format used by the Finnegan TSQ instrument.
MR. BLASIER: Is that the format you use?
MR. MARTZ: It is one that we have available at the FBI laboratory, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Same format as on all your charts?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And let's assume hypothetically that tests were done to determine how efficient your method was of removing EDTA. Do you have that hypothetical in mind?
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: How would you test that hypothesis?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you would extract it and then run it against a known.
MR. BLASIER: Does it appear that that is what those charts do?
MS. CLARK: Objection, 721, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Can you check with your people at Quantico over the lunch hour to see whether they did that test and what they found?
MS. CLARK: Objection, 721. He did not rely on that. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Will you do that for me?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know what they will be there. I can call--what exactly do you want me to find out?
THE COURT: Why don't we confer with Agent Martz at the lunch hour.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: When the materials that you had put together were provided to the Prosecutors, is it your understanding that that validation study was provided as well?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Then is it fair to say that you didn't do any studies yourself to determine whether your methods for extracting blood or EDTA was efficient?
MR. MARTZ: I think I did. I think I did. On February the 8th I extracted. I was given two samples by someone in the laboratory; one with EDTA and one without, and I was very easily able to determine which stain contained the EDTA and which one didn't.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever run a test where you did an extraction and then you did a second extraction to see if you had picked up all the EDTA in the first extraction?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if you didn't pick up all the EDTA in the first extraction, you are going to see less of it when you run the test?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Have you done any tests at all to determine whether the age of a bloodstain affects your ability to extract it with water alone?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether aged bloodstains can be extracted with the same efficiency with just water as new bloodstains?
MR. MARTZ: I had conducted several tests on old blood and two from 1993 and I think the other one was from 1991. These were EDTA bloodstains. And I was convinced, based on the analysis that I did with those stains, that the age of the blood, at least over three or four years, had no effect in me determining whether or not the stains were from preserved or non-preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike that all as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken in its entirety.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--
THE COURT: Agent Martz, would you listen carefully, please, to the question and answer the question that is directed to you, sir.
MR. BLASIER: Did do you any tests to determine whether an old dried bloodstain, not blood from a tube, but a bloodstain that is older can be just as efficiently extracted from that stain as a new bloodstain that has been put on the stain and just dried for an hour or so, with the use of plain water?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did. I took two bloodstains from 1993 that had been on material since 1993. I extracted those and I got similar results for EDTA as other blood that was freshly prepared. I got similar results.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort in that particular test--by the way, when did you do that? Saturday?
MR. MARTZ: That was done last weekend.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you did that, did you make any effort to quantify the amount of blood that you were able to get out of that old blood stain?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any other base of experience vis-à-vis old bloodstains versus new bloodstains in terms of how efficient just using water is at removing all the blood?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with Dr. Rieders that using an ammonia solution in water is a better way to make sure that you extract all the blood?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, are we talking about blood or EDTA?
MR. BLASIER: Both. Let's talk both.
MR. MARTZ: For EDTA I don't know, to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. BLASIER: And you did no testing to find that--answer that question either, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No, no.
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you about the gate. Did you perform any tests or to your knowledge did the--your lab in Quantico perform any tests to determine whether or not a bloodstain, an EDTA bloodstain, placed on a metal gate and left exposed to the outside for, let's say, hypothetically a day to three weeks, whether there would be any degradation or loss of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever make any effort to determine the type of paint that was on the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: No, I didn't believe that it was necessary.
MR. BLASIER: Paints have metals that tend to attract EDTA, don't they?
MR. MARTZ: In my opinion the EDTA would stay in the bloodstain.
MR. BLASIER: Paints have metals that EDTA likes, don't they, and is very attracted to them?
MR. MARTZ: I think it would depend on the type of paint, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do any tests at all to determine whether the type of paint upon which a bloodstain was deposited would attract some of the EDTA and remove it from the blood?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I used one particular paint that we had in the laboratory, a metal surface. I don't know exactly which type of paint it was, but I was able to place a bloodstain on a painted metal surface and effectively remove the EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: What effort did you make to find out whether the paint you used bore any similarity to the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: None.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out whether there was any rust on the back gate where that bloodstain was deposited?
MR. MARTZ: No. Again, I didn't feel it was necessary.
MR. BLASIER: Does rust attract EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: It--it could.
MR. BLASIER: It is iron, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, but iron exists in different states. That is iron oxide and I don't know the property of iron oxide for attacking EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: EDTA loves iron, doesn't it?
MR. MARTZ: In certain form, depending on the pH.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to determine what other environmental things might--let me rephrase. Did you make any effort to determine whether there was any fertilizer that had been used in the area of the gate and may have gotten to the bloodstain?
MR. MARTZ: No, no, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Do fertilizers contain chemicals that are attracted to EDTA or that EDTA is attracted to?
MR. MARTZ: I don't really now how that is relevant, but I guess that they could.
MR. BLASIER: Were you trying to, in your positive controls, design them in such a way that they mimicked as close as possible what you would have expected to find had EDTA blood been used and put on the back gate?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I tied to do that to the best of what I had available and did that with the sock. I used the same sock. With the gatepost, I didn't have that gatepost. We are talking many months later when I got the samples. The gatepost is certainly in different condition now than it was then. I couldn't stain it on the same area of the gate. Based on the testing that I did, I didn't feel that it was necessary to duplicate exactly the conditions because EDTA is a very, very stable chemical.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't it the purpose of a positive control to test the hypothesis--let's assume that EDTA blood was used under the conditions which these stains were deposited, preserved and collected and see what we find. Isn't that what a positive control is for?
MR. MARTZ: The positive control is to determine whether or not you can identify the substance that you are looking for and the matrix that it is on.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the purposes of a positive control to try and simulate the hypothesis, let's assume that EDTA blood was used on these bloodstains and let's put it through the same type of conditions that the evidence was and see what we find at the end of the road?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean you can't duplicate everything exactly all the time. What you try to do is to duplicate as much as possible and that is why I used a painted surface in the laboratory to duplicate the painted gate, to determine whether or not I could remove EDTA from a painted surface.
MR. BLASIER: Your painted surface, what was that? What kind of metal was that?
MR. MARTZ: It was--I'm sure it was an iron. It was a can.
MR. BLASIER: It was a can, wasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah, it was a can.
MR. BLASIER: Wasn't anything like a gate?
MS. CLARK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MARTZ: Well--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, other than--by the way, when you painted your can, how long did you leave--I'm sorry, when you put the bloodstain on the can, how long did you leave it there before you swabbed it off?
MR. MARTZ: Probably 45 minutes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to deposit a stain on that can and leave it for a period of one day to three weeks to see what you might find?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever make any efforts to determine what the whether was from July--I'm sorry--from June 12th to July 3rd, the period of time when that bloodstain may have been on that gate?
MR. MARTZ: No. I didn't feel that that was necessary for my determination.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to determine whether that particular bloodstain had changed in terms of being weathered from one--from the time it was deposited until it was collected?
MR. MARTZ: No. You got to remember here, this bloodstain has been identified as human blood. DNA is a very fragile chemical. EDTA is a very, very, very stable chemical. So I felt that if it could be determined that it was blood, that I would have no trouble determining the EDTA content.
MR. BLASIER: Is your reason for not doing any of those things that I have been talking about is because you made assumptions that they wouldn't make any difference?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know that I necessarily call them--well, you can call them assumptions. It was based on some scientific information that I had that I based that on.
MR. BLASIER: Was it based on any experimentation on your part at all?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think--I think it is in a way experiments that I performed over the last twenty years in the laboratory I think is based a lot on that.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever worked with--I think--didn't you say you had never worked with EDTA until this case?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I have worked with chemicals that are similar and I know what the melting point and boiling points of EDTA is and its property and their solubility and there are certain assumptions that you can make.
MR. BLASIER: Let's talk about the sock. Did you make any effort--let's assume that the sock was collected around June 13th, okay? And did you make any effort to determine how many times the sock had been examined under high-intensity lights or any other kind of lighting during the period of time June 13th until you got it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: No. Again I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA, when dried, is a very, very, very stable chemical. The FDA would not use it as a preservative if it wasn't stable. It is a very stable chemical.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any study anywhere that looks at the effect of light on EDTA in a dried bloodstain?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you perform any such test?
MR. MARTZ: Well, in a sense I did. I looked at bloodstains that were several years old.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any idea what the history of those bloodstains were in terms of how often they had been examined and under what conditions?
MR. MARTZ: No, but I'm sure they were under various conditions.
MR. BLASIER: How do you know that?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is part of the FBI's procedure to dry the bloodstains on the cloth. They were dried back in 1993 on the cloth.
MR. BLASIER: Where did those stains come from?
MR. MARTZ: It was a case that was submitted to the FBI laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Where did they come from?
MR. MARTZ: From people.
MR. BLASIER: In what form?
MR. MARTZ: Liquid blood.
MR. BLASIER: That were then made into strains?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So those weren't stains deposited on a surface like a gate or a sock at all, were they?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean they were stains that we placed onto a fabric.
MR. BLASIER: They weren't evidence stains from a crime scene of blood taken off of evidence, were they?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do any tests to determine whether the effects of sudden temperature change or what the effects might be on EDTA in the sock of sudden temperature changes?
MR. MARTZ: No. Again, I didn't feel it was necessary. EDTA is a very stable chemical that will decompose I think at about 290 degrees centigrade. That it is a very hot temperature. It is a very stable chemical.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any studies that look at that question?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: So again, you are saying that you are making assumptions that it wouldn't make a difference, that is why you didn't check for it?
MR. MARTZ: I'm making assumptions based on my twenty years of experience working with chemicals.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons you didn't do some of these things is that you were kind of rushed on this?
MR. MARTZ: No. I believe that I was able to answer the question which was put to me and that was my sole objective, to answer the question, and I believe I was able to do that without doing all the things that have been mentioned.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that you have had time, since your testing in February, to do some of these validation type studies that I have suggested?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, you must realize I'm in charge of a unit at the FBI laboratory. I'm presently now in charge of the section until we get a new section chief. I am wearing a lot of different hats, I'm working cases, I'm reviewing the work of over twenty people, and right now I am actually in charge of over 200 people. I am in charge of the whole scientific analysis section of the FBI laboratory in the interim, until we get a new section chief, so I do have a lot of responsibilities at the FBI laboratory. And I believed that I answered the question satisfactorily. I did not need to do any other testing. Since the other day I have performed a few more tests, but other than that, I didn't feel that any other testing was needed.
MR. BLASIER: I take it from that answer that it is a time problem? It would take a lot of time?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it is that plus necessary. Was it necessary for me to do any other testing to answer the question? In my opinion it was not.
MR. BLASIER: What is the appropriate method if you are going to use mass spectrometry to quantify the amount in an unknown sample?
MR. MARTZ: Well, there is many different ways.
MR. BLASIER: What is the most accepted?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know of whether it is the most accepted, but to me the best way in mass spectrometry is to use what is called a deuterated standard and that is what we routinely use at the FBI laboratory for quantitation. It is a very expensive means of quantitation, but I believe it is most effective in mass spectrometry for precise quantitation.
MR. BLASIER: Now, correct me if I am wrong. An internal standard, that is something that is very close to the EDTA, but you know it is there and you know how much is there, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it is actually mixed in with the stain--with the liquid that you are going to look at, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: In other words, it is not run at one time and then your e