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. All parties are again present. Mr. Simpson is present with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier, People represented by Mr. Darden, Mr. Goldberg, Ms. Clark. The jury is not present. The record should reflect that this morning, the Court had a conference with counsel in chambers concerning certain demonstrative evidence items prepared by the Prosecution. The first was the "LAPD Additional Evidence Disposition" which has been previously marked as People's 209. The Court will allow the use without commentary regarding what was done with the items represented, which are the substrate controls, while they were in the possession of the Defense and made available at that time for their examination. There is a second board that is entitled "Defense Testing," and I'm sustaining the Defense objection to the title of that board. And for simplicity purposes, Mr. Goldberg, I would suggest at this point that we mark that as People's 210. Is that agreeable to the People?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
(Peo's 210 for id = board)
THE COURT: And I'm going to direct Mr. Fairtlough to cover the title of the board as "Defense testing" since at this point, it's not appropriate to comment on whether or not any testing has been accomplished or done by the Defense.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is the Court going to have that stipulation prepared or will we be able to ask Mr. Matheson whether these items were turned over in October of last year?
THE COURT: You'll be able to ask him if those items were turned over and that they were returned at some point in time, and that's it.
MR. BLASIER: I believe you used the word "Examination" and in chambers, you used the word "Inspection."
THE COURT: Inspection.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Matheson is here and, Mr. Goldberg, you can consult with him on that. All right. As to a third board that was shown to the Court which has various depictions of item 13, the socks, the Court will sustain the Defense objection at this time to the board itself. However, the photograph of the single sock, the objection is overruled. All right. Anything else we need to put on the record before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
MR. BLASIER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury.
(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. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gregory Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gregory Matheson, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Good morning, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good morning.
THE COURT: Mr. Matheson, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: Ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY Mr. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, when we left off yesterday, we were talking about the creation of fitzco cards from the reference file. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: I wanted to show you what we previously marked as 163-L for identification, see if you can tell us what this type of item is.
MR. MATHESON: This is an example of a type of blood swatch card that we purchase. It has an outer envelope for protection. Inside contains an area where you can record some information about the items and then four circles that are in a filter type paper approximately an inch in diameter where you put the blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you hold that up so the jurors can see what you're talking about?
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: 1492 indicates she can't see that. Do you want to pass that through the jury box?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. Can I also pass the envelope that it came in?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, would it be permissible to mark another exhibit while the jurors are--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark as People's 1--excuse me--211 for identification, that's 211-A what appears to be a photograph of item no. 60.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. That was item no. 16?
MR. GOLDBERG: 60.
THE COURT: 6 0.
(Peo's 211-A for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: As 211-B what appears to be item no. 59.
THE COURT: All right. 211-B.
(Peo's 211-B for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: 211-C what appears to be item no. 17, the fitzco cards.
(Peo's 211-C for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: I placed the numbers on the reverse of the photographs.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Russell, would you return that to Mr. Goldberg.
(Deputy Russell complies.)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, I would now like to show you the photographs that have been marked as 211-A through C for identification. Is the resolution high enough for you to see those on your screen?
MR. MATHESON: I can see the items and what's displayed there. The writing is difficult to discern.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take a look at these photographs prior to coming into Court today, last night?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to these three items, what are they, first of all?
MR. MATHESON: All three items are cards similar to the type that was just displayed in the courtroom here that are used to preserve liquid blood samples. Portions of a liquid sample is applied to the four different squares of the card. Best way to preserve a sample is dried and frozen so that way, we have portions of the blood rather than just keeping in a vial in the best possible form.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you do your testing or some of your testing from these cards as opposed to the blood vials themselves?
MR. MATHESON: As far as the conventional typing goes, it's all done directly from the blood vial. These we started using in our laboratory with the advent of DNA typing.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in many of the photographs that we've seen of the packaging materials in this case, there are these cards at the bottom. What are those, the ones that have the DR number and the date?
MR. MATHESON: Those cards are placed in there by the photographer. They have the DR number, date and what's call a "C" number, which references back to the order number for the photography.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that's standard when your SID photographer is taking photographs such as these?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's standard for something like that to show up in at least one frame of a roll of film or a sequence of photographs regarding the evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the photograph that's 211-A, on the bindle, there are some initials, if you can see them, that are "C.Y." Can you see that?
MR. MATHESON: No. I can't make it out on the picture.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Who is that?
MR. MATHESON: The "C.Y." Are the initials of Collin Yamauchi, a criminalist that works in the serology unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the C-2?
MR. MATHESON: C-2 refers to a designation that we gave the initial exemplars that were involved in this case. It was decided that due to confidentiality, we would give an arbitrary indication, C-1, C-2 and C-3 to the exemplar, portions of the exemplars that were submitted to cellmark diagnostics for analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that's standard or was just done in this case?
MR. MATHESON: It was done in this case. We haven't done that before.
MR. GOLDBERG: And C-2 then was Nicole Brown?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was C-1?
MR. MATHESON: C-1 was Mr. Simpson.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, object on foundational grounds previously stated. Continuing objection.
THE COURT: Noted.
MR. GOLDBERG: And C-3?
MR. MATHESON: C-3 was Mr. Goldman's sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. Now, I was also going through the board that we marked as People's 177, the evidence disposition.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can I see the board that has number 78, item no. 78 on it?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as my next exhibit, that's 212, a document that says "Serology Item Description Notes."
THE COURT: All right. People's 212.
(Peo's 212 for id = serology notes)
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you have a copy of that?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to place a 212 on the reverse of the document.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to People's 177, and this is the exhibit that has 59 through 82 on it, looking at item no. 78, the packaging, did you do some testing yourself on that item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you take some swatches from that item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that? What is the item?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the item, item no. 78, are a pair of white shoes with red stains on them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in reviewing the records in order to verify this board, did you see a record that pertained to the entry 78 swatch and the date 7-20-94 with Mr. Yamauchi's name?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did. The name appears on the board here. I recognize the document as one prepared by him.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see that next document as People's 212?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That's all right. I'll just--to save time, I'll just show the witness.
MR. GOLDBERG: Showing you People's 212 for identification, can you tell us what that is?
MR. MATHESON: This is a serology item description note page filled out by Mr. Yamauchi indicating the swatching or sampling of some stains under the--what appears to be the left shoe from item no. 78.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you've previously described this type of document. Is this type of document actually generated at the time that the actual analysis or swatching is being performed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you have sketches on these very often; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the analyst sketch out or try to sketch out where the swatch or cutting came from when they're taking a swatch or a cutting?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Normally.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Did Mr. Yamauchi do that here?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there a sketch on this particular document indicating where the swatches came from?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And I wanted to ask you another question about the items that were recovered by you from the carpet from the Bronco that was People's 172, if we could see that board again.
(Brief pause.)
(discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It's People's 172. Sir, directing your attention back to People's 172 for identification and the photograph in the middle on the bottom that has the number 293 in it, do you recognize what's depicted there?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who is pointing to that item with the red pen?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that's my hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you collected this item, 293, did you collect it from the carpet that's depicted in that photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you previously discussed how you did that. You used the method of just cutting rather than cloth swatch?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what item number is the carpet itself?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it's item no. 33.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was recovered by Mr. Fung; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of the swatching that was done on the console of the Bronco that you said that you could see prior to when you did your swatching, do you feel that more sample should have been taken from those areas, 30 and 31?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. I feel that probably--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague as to time. Samples were taken by whom?
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, when they were initially swatched.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did. Upon seeing the blood that was present, I believed that probably more should have been taken originally.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what do you mean by that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there was stains present on the console, and--that's a hard surface. It's a non-pore surface. Blood is just sitting right on top. It's fairly easy to remove, but it also can be fairly thin. Would have--probably the best thing to have done would have been to remove more of the sample originally on the first search.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you removed more sample from those locations, was all of it gone by the time you were finished?
MR. MATHESON: No, it was not.
MR. GOLDBERG: How much was left?
MR. MATHESON: I don't remember.
MR. GOLDBERG: But there was some left?
MR. MATHESON: There was visible staining left, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: If you're removing staining that covers a fairly large area on a wall, for example, how do you decide how much of that stain to remove if it's a smear that covers maybe a square foot?
MR. MATHESON: Well, given the different types that are available to us now, I would, in a situation like that, would probably want to collect four or five swatches and maybe quarter-inch square swatches, something like that. Maybe a little more. Depends on whether there's other evidence available.
MR. GOLDBERG: But would you necessarily cover the whole square foot?
MR. MATHESON: No. I probably would not take it all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to mark as People's next in order the additional LAPD evidence disposition board. That's 213. Maybe Mr. Fairtlough could put that up for us while he's there. Oh, I'm sorry. I think we previously marked this before we started as 209.
THE COURT: People's 209.
MR. BLASIER: 209?
THE COURT: 209.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to what's been previously marked as People's 209 for identification, do you recognize that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you had the opportunity to look at this document to verify it against the records that are maintained by the Scientific Investigations Division?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you go through the same type of verification process that you described yesterday afternoon when I was asking you about the other evidence disposition boards?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 6, was a control swatch of item no. 6 sent somewhere on February 17th?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what records did you have to look at in order to verify that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are a number of notes that were made by the individuals that prepared and sent those samples. Ended up being many pages worth of notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were those notes that were prepared at the time that the samples were actually being packaged for transmittal or shipping?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they were.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in addition to the documentation procedures that you described just now and yesterday, was there any photo documentation that occurred?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, prior to the items that were shipped out or delivered out that--during those dates in February, all of the items were described and photographed prior to their release.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the photograph that's in the cell under item number--for no. 6 depict the photo documentation that was done?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can lower that down a little bit.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the bindle that's in item no. 6, was there anything other than the control?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, where did these items that were sent out on the 17th go to?
MR. MATHESON: To a laboratory in Albany, New York.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who brought them there?
MR. MATHESON: They actually went out in a couple of different shipments. I believe D.A. Investigators transported them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when did these various items that went out on the 17th come back?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they came back also in a couple of different shipments, but in and around February 22nd.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 6, when it came back or after it came back, was it photo documented again?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us the date that it was photo documented?
MR. MATHESON: I'd have to refer to the photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: The date reflects February 27th, 1995.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the date that it was photo documented, were you notified by someone to come and look at that bindle?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you do?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I was asked to come back to the serology unit to take a look at the contents of that bindle.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you see?
MR. MATHESON: A portion of the control plus a hair.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that depicted in the photo documentation that was done on the 27th?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we could, with the Court's permission, just move this board down so that the jurors can see it.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: So, Mr. Matheson, as to item no. 6, was there a hair that was not there in the bindle when it was sent to the Defense on February 17th, found in the bindle when it was photo documented on February the 27th?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And what happened to item no. 6, the control, after the 27th of February?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. May we approach briefly?
THE COURT: Yes, with the Court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Since he didn't ask the question, I would ask to reinstruct the jury that this was provided to the Defense for purposes of inspection. I assumed he was going to ask that rather than leaving the implication it went to Albany without explaining why it was back there.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought the only thing I was allowed to ask is that it went, but not anything else.
THE COURT: You can ask, was it for the purpose of allowing the Defense to inspect the items.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if he knows for sure what they did.
THE COURT: The purpose of releasing it. Ask a leading question, the purpose was to inspect.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, to your knowledge, was the purpose of the items that went out on February the 17th to allow the Defense to inspect those items?
MR. MATHESON: That was my understanding, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after the 27th, as to item no. 6, what happened to that item?
MR. MATHESON: It was sent to the Department of Justice.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on the column that says, "Back to SID," what does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that references when items are returned back to our facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: And certain items on this say, "Return to evidence control unit on 2-29-95," item 6, 56 and 305; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who did that?
MR. MATHESON: The actual return of those items?
MR. GOLDBERG: To the evidence control unit.
MR. MATHESON: I believe I did. I'd have to reference my notes to be sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And maybe you can double-check your notes.
(The witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: I have the notes on other items that were returned on 2-22nd. I'm having a difficult time locating these particular items.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, can you tell from your other notes who returned those or can you--
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are items that were returned by Mr. Ragle, the ECU, on the 22nd.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's all right. But when you reviewed this board initially, did you check some document to see that these particular items were returned to ECU on the 22nd?
MR. MATHESON: I checked documents that were in a notebook at the D.A.'s office. I did not bring all the notes we had associated with. Just things I was directly involved with.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the cell on no. 6 where it says, "DOJ, 6-29-95," does that reflect the date that it went out?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the analyzed--the coin envelope on that particular cell is an original envelope or a transmittal envelope?
MR. MATHESON: I would have to take a look at the picture. That particular envelope is one that was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, not the original envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to no. 7, did you go through the same verification process that you just described with respect to no. 6?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you also looked at the photographs to verify that they were in fact photographs that were prepared by the ana--items that were prepared by the analyst that actually did the shipping?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the items that are no. 12 and 49 that say returned on 3-9-95 from DOJ, did you verify that those were in fact returned on that date?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know who actually put them back in ECU?
MR. MATHESON: Not at this point, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But at any rate, you did verify that either yourself or one of your criminalists did that?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the items that were returned on 11-22-94, 13 and 305?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You verified that those were in fact returned on that date and rebooked into ECU?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they were returned on that date. They were not rebooked into the unit or in the ECU at that time.
MR. GOLDBERG: At that time. Where did they go?
MR. MATHESON: They were stored in the serology freezer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And with respect to 305, was that one of the items that you removed from the Bronco?
MR. MATHESON: As item no. 305, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when it came back, it was rebooked as another item number?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that?
MR. MATHESON: That is a procedure that we had in place regarding evidence that was submitted to outside agencies for analysis. Whenever--as I described earlier, there are types of DNA analysis that we don't perform in our laboratory. So when we want that work done, we send it out to cellmark diagnostics for them to perform the testing. It was our policy that the items would be sent out to the laboratory. Then what we received back at cellmark would be rebooked as a new item. We would not necessarily go through it, but retain it in a sealed condition from that laboratory, create a new item number for it and return it to our evidence control unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when 305 rebooked as 401, once it came back from the Department of Justice, was sent out to the Department of Justice again on May the 9th, was it sent out under item no. 401 or 305?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the date when it was sent back out was March the 9th.
MR. GOLDBERG: I am sorry. Right.
MR. MATHESON: And it would have been sent out as 401 referencing it back to 305.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you also check the icons on these to see that it was just swatches that were sent out on 6, 7, 12, 49, 56 and 305?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you looked at the transmittal envelopes that are in the column that says "To outside lab" to verify those?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 13, there's an entry under the date "To Defense," the column "To Defense" on 2-16-95, SID. What does that reference?
MR. MATHESON: That references a viewing of that item or inspection of that item within our laboratory. Didn't actually get sent anywhere.
MR. GOLDBERG: So it didn't actually leave the laboratory on that particular--well, it didn't leave the laboratory to go to the Defense on that date?
MR. MATHESON: That is correct. That's within the SID facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did it leave the laboratory to go somewhere on 2-16?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where?
MR. MATHESON: To the FBI.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as to item no. 17, the envelope containing a vial of blood, was that entire envelope and blood vial sent somewhere on April the 3rd?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where was it sent?
MR. MATHESON: To the FBI.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on June the 29th of last year, did you participate in an inventory that was done at the Los Angeles Police Department of certain of the evidence in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who was present during that inventory?
MR. MATHESON: That inventory was performed--myself, Mr. Yamauchi was present and Miss Kestler.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you look at the socks, item no. 13, bearing the DR number in this case during that inventory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that the first time that you actually saw that item?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to mark as People's next in order, I think it's 213, a page from the inventory sheet of 6-29. It's the second page.
THE COURT: All right. 213.
(Peo's 213 for id = pg. from inventory sheet)
THE COURT: Can you fine focus that just a little more?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It's still a little bit out of focus.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see--can you see the area that says "13, socks"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I can.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you read what it says to the right of the socks? Is that "Navy blue/black"?
MR. MATHESON: I made out the black, and as soon as you mentioned the navy blue, that is what is written there at the slash.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Whose handwriting is this?
MR. MATHESON: That's mine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. If we can see the other end of this column, 13. Can we get a little bit more--can we see the top of the document too?
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, there are three columns that you can see in this frame. One is "Analysis performed." That's on the left as we're looking at the document now. What does that refer to?
MR. MATHESON: That was an area where we could record what type of work had been done on that item up to that date.
MR. GOLDBERG: And for item no. 13, did you record anything in that column?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because nothing had been done with that item yet.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then there's a column that says "Comments" that's on the right as we're looking at this document.
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what's that for?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that was any sort of comment, either greater description of the item, miscellaneous information about it, potentially what additional work we would be doing with that item.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you write in that column?
MR. MATHESON: In quotes, I have "Dress socks" to give me an indication that they are, you know, a thin dress-style sock rather than heavy athletic sock or something like that. I have the words "Blood search" indicating that it's our intent to do that at some point and then I also have in parenthesis "None obvious."
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did you actually do a blood search on this day, on the 29th?
MR. MATHESON: Just a quick visual inspection of the item.
MR. GOLDBERG: So why did you say "Blood search to be done"?
MR. MATHESON: Because that was not an analysis at that point. We opened them up, took a look at them and indicated that that's something that we'd someday be performing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why did you want to perform one in the future?
MR. MATHESON: Seemed like a legitimate thing to do on that piece of item--evidence. It was an item of clothing. The quick inspection that was done in the office was insufficient, particularly due to its color and we were not there to do a scientific analysis. It was something that was planned.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, shouldn't you be able to see blood if there was blood on there?
MR. MATHESON: It depends on the color and the type of material it's on.
MR. GOLDBERG: How often in your experience as a serologist do you find blood on fabrics based upon testing that you did not see with your eyes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it happens occasionally. It's not a regular thing. You have to--the conditions have to be just right to make it difficult to see.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are those conditions?
MR. MATHESON: Most notably, black materials like a black leather jacket, very difficult to see blood on, black denim, Levis, that type of thing, difficult to see blood on and black material.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'd like to mark as People's next in order a photograph depicting--one that says "Sock a" on the reverse, and it has a little writing up in the upper right-hand corner that says "13-A" as People's 2--
THE COURT: 14.
MR. GOLDBERG: 14. Can I make that 214-A?
THE COURT: Yes, since it's sock a.
(Peo's 214-A for id = photograph)
THE COURT: And, Mr. Blasier, you've seen that?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as 214-B what appears to be another sock. It has various writing. Just for identification purposes, the writing contains the numbers 42-C, B, various other writing.
THE COURT: All right. 214-B.
(Peo's 214-B for id = photograph)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 214-A for identification--maybe we can get a zoom in on the area with the writing near the heel. Do you recognize this item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there anything on it that you placed on the item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: That whitish notation that's directly on the sock itself, there's an arrow that points--I was going to say left. Now down and now upside down. Adjacent to the left of the arrow is the designation 15-A or--excuse me--13-A. It's very hard to write on material with a pen, ink pen.
MR. GOLDBERG: What number a?
MR. MATHESON: 13-A.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did someone take a cutting from that area?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who did that?
MR. MATHESON: I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you do that on some date after 6-29?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Directing your attention to the date of September the 18th, can you take a look at your notes pertaining to that date and see whether you did any work on the sock?
(The witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: I'm referring to analyzed evidence report and associated notes. In particular, L-371, 372, 373 and then "L" partially cut off. It looks like 385.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, what date did you look at this for the purposes of commencing the testing that you performed?
MR. MATHESON: On September 18th, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: When was the cutting, 13-A, made?
MR. MATHESON: On that same date I believe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you saw this sock on the--September the 18th, at that time, did you see anything that stood out and you recognized as being blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, initially--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you see?
MR. MATHESON: Well, initially upon removing the sock from the bag, basically I was looking at the same thing as what I had seen on the 29th. Upon closer examination, with different lighting, I was able to discern that there were some stained areas on the sock.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when you say initially before you used different lighting, you pulled it out and you saw the same thing as on the 29th, what same thing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the fact that they were black socks that did not have large obvious stains on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then when you say that you took a closer look with different lighting, what did you see?
MR. MATHESON: I was able to discern that there were stained areas on the socks.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you describe what the stained areas looked like?
MR. MATHESON: They really just looked like a darker area of the sock themselves.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was one of the stained areas in the area of 13-A?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But we can't see it on the photograph or can we?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's try to get a little closer to see if we can see anything.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if you can see anything now. I can't make anything out. Maybe you--can you see anything on there?
MR. MATHESON: As far as a visible stain?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And how long did you have to search when you were looking at it on the 18th before you could actually see something visibly?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, it was probably--once I had them spread out and was down looking at them, initially I would say I started seeing something within a matter of a minute or so. The thing is, as you get to look at it or as your eyes become accustomed to what you're looking for, it became apparent that there were other stains on the socks.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at that time, could you tell based upon your training and experience what you were looking at?
MR. MATHESON: Just by looking at the sock?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: At that point, I just had a darkened area. I didn't know what it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you could not tell for sure that--well, did you form an opinion that it was blood or was it just you didn't know?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you form any opinions at that time as to what the stain was that you were looking at?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now maybe we can see the other sock that's been marked as People's 113-B I think. 213. I'm sorry. It's 214-B.
THE COURT: 214-A and B. This is 214-B.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see the--is that the whole photograph?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention now to People's 214-B for identification, does that represent a photograph of one of the other socks as no. 13?
MR. MATHESON: That appears to be a black sock like no. 13.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you saw this particular black sock or the other black sock, did you see any obvious staining on that?
MR. MATHESON: Not obvious, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see any upon further examination?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you see upon further examination?
MR. MATHESON: Same thing. There was some small kind of darker areas on it that, as you allow your eyes to focus along with having seen the other one, started becoming apparent.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were they similar to the stains that you saw on the other sock?
MR. MATHESON: Well, similar in general appearance. Not necessarily in size or location.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's what I meant. And at the time that you took a closer look and your eyes adjusted, did you form any opinion at that time as to what the stain was?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in your experience, Mr. Matheson, what does dry blood look like?
MR. MATHESON: It kind of depends what surface it's on. But as blood dries, it gets darker going from a reddish to a more reddish brown and eventually can look almost black.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how long it would take typically a dot of blood that's deposited outdoors on concrete say before it turns from a red to a brown?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, have you observed--ever had occasion to observe that--a dot that was red and later on turned brown?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how long--is that something that you could predict or does it depend on the circumstances how long it takes?
MR. MATHESON: Depends on the circumstances.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But as it ages, it does change color?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the stains that you've talked about on item no. 13, what color were those, if you could detect any color?
MR. MATHESON: All I could see was, they were a darker area on these dark socks.
MR. GOLDBERG: So could you see that they appeared to be black, red, brown or just darker?
MR. MATHESON: They were just darker.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the date of June the 27th of last year, did you begin to do some testing on that date on item no. 18?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm going to again refer to my notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: 17, I'm sorry, in this case.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that's the reference vial?
MR. MATHESON: Item no. 17, yes. The whole blood vial marked "O.J. Simpson."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you started to do some testing, did you take anything out of the vial?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you take?
MR. MATHESON: Blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how did you take it?
MR. MATHESON: I just take a--what's called a pipette. It's nothing more than a--kind of a glass tube that comes down to almost a point. You have a rubber bulb on the top. Insert that into the blood, draw out, oh, approximately a milliliter, which is not quite a teaspoon, something like that, and transfer that into a--it's called a centrifuge tube, a small plastic tube that has a cone shape on the bottom.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you transfer it from the vial to the centrifuge tube with the pipette?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with the pipette after you make the transfer?
MR. MATHESON: Well, during the course of the analysis--normally the way I set up my analysis on a whole blood vial like this, I have a--what's called a test tube rack, which is nothing more then a plastic rack with a bunch of plastic prongs sticking up. The tube is placed down in there so it doesn't fall over. I place a clean test tube alongside of it and then the centrifuge tube. When I'm not using the pipette, it just drops into the clean test tube to hold it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I can show you Defense 1124 for identification again. Is this the same type of tube that the reference sample is in, purple top tube?
MR. MATHESON: It's a purple top tube. I don't know if it's the exact same brand or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: But that could be checked by looking at the photograph on our evidence disposition board?
MR. MATHESON: If it's visible in the photograph, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are these tubes, the purple top tubes that you work with in serology, graduated?
MR. MATHESON: No. There's no sort of indication of the volumes. Graduated meaning that there's marks on it that show the different volumes. It's just a glass tube.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, how much of the blood did you actually use in the testing that you commenced on the 27th?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know exactly how much I used.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation as to how much you typically used or is consumed in the testing itself?
MR. MATHESON: Normally, there's no records kept as far as it uses a small quantity. The approximate milliliter that I mentioned before, I may use for all the testing depending on whether I retain that centrifuge tube, return it to the blood vial or whether I discard it. I could use anywhere from, oh, a small portion of that to the whole milliliter, milliliter and a half.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, how much do you--is typically consumed in an ABO test, for example?
MR. MATHESON: What's actually consumed for the test is about three drops of the cells and about three drops of the serum.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the test itself only requires a few drops?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what do you do with the rest of the item that--the blood that you put into the micro centrifuge tube?
MR. MATHESON: Actually I've been inconsistent with that. Sometimes I returned it back to the blood vial and sometimes I discarded it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know what you did in this case?
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know what the habit and custom is of other analysts in your laboratory who were working in serology?
MR. MATHESON: Well, within serology? Some retain them, some discard them. It's--we're not consistent with that.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you assume in a given case that you poured out a milliliter of blood or pipetted out a milliliter of fluid into a micro centrifuge tube and only three drops or so were used in the testing and if you assume that you returned the remainder to the reference vial, how much blood if any would be left on the pipetter and on the micro centrifuge tube?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you're going to have some clinging to the walls of both of those. Approximation, maybe a quarter to a third of the original volume that you've pulled out. Blood is fairly viscous. It will retain to the sides of containers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us in milliliters?
MR. MATHESON: Well, given that, I would say about a quarter of a milliliter or so.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever done any experiments or studies to try to figure out, using the technique that you usually use, how much blood is thrown away that was clinging to the sides of the micro centrifuge tube or the pipetter?
MR. MATHESON: No. We'd never had to deal with an issue of needing to know that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you make any documentation at or around the time that this is performed on the 27th to record specifically how much blood you used in the analysis or pipetted into the micro centrifuge tube?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because it's never been an issue. We've never had to worry about how much was used during the course of the analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why have you never had to worry about that?
MR. MATHESON: It's never been raised in an issue. We've never had to account for every portion of blood that was supplied to us. It--like I mentioned before, in the case of living individuals, we knew that we had a source to get an additional sample if it was needed. It just has never been an issue before.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you don't have any written documents as to specifically whether you used the technique of pouring the micro centrifuge tube back into the reference vial or the technique of throwing the remainder away?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you make any recordation when you see the vial on the 27th as to how much was in it when you started?
MR. MATHESON: I have done that in the past. I'd like to reference my notes, see if I did in this case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: There is a reference by Mr. Yamauchi as to how much he removed and used. I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm talking about the 27th when you did--when you did your--commenced your testing.
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why don't you make any recordation as to how much was in there when you started?
MR. MATHESON: For the same reason. It's never been an issue before. I didn't feel that that was information that needed to be recorded.
MR. GOLDBERG: So this has not come up previously in your--how many years of experience was it--17 at the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I haven't been in serology that long. But in my time in serology, I've never had to provide this information before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I'd like to look back for a moment at the document that we marked "The inventory," which was People's 213 for identification. And this is the same page that we showed you before from 6-29?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on this page, did you write something out with respect to item no. 17 as to how much was in the vial at that time?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you write?
MR. MATHESON: I recorded two ml's, which stand for two milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, how did you come up with that figure?
MR. MATHESON: It was an estimate. We opened up the envelope, held up the tube and made a guess or an estimate as to what percentage of the vial.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you didn't use any measuring technique in terms of a ruler or comparing it to another vial in order to come up with two milliliters?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in your experience in serology, do you have a lot of experience in dealing with these purple top tubes estimating or guesstimating how much is in them?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in that--no, I don't. I know the total volume of it, and that's what I base my guess on. But it's not something that we do on a regular basis and no, I don't have a lot of experience estimating the quantity.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, one would think that over the 13 years seeing these tubes over and over again, you kind of get a sense of what two milliliters looks like as opposed to three milliliters. Is that not true?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you'd get a sense if you measured it. The way you get experience, the way you learn something is by doing it. And like I said, we have not measured the quantity of blood in vials on a regular basis within the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you looked at occasion--did you have occasion to look at this vial again for the purposes of actually measuring it after the 29th?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention to September--excuse me--September--excuse me--January the 4th of 1995--no. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. September the 21st of 1994, did you take a look at the vial again?
MR. MATHESON: Referring again to my notes and a chronology page labeled L-521 for 9-21-94, yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you measure it on that occasion?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: How did you measure it?
MR. MATHESON: At that point, what I did is took a blood vial of similar shape and size, but empty, placing it alongside of the blood vial, item no. 17, filled up the empty vial with water to visually the same level as the other one and then measured the quantity of water that was equivalent to the amount of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: How many times in the past have you done that procedure?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I've probably just done it a couple of times. It is not a common situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how long ago it was prior to September the 21st that you had last done that procedure?
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But you think you've only done it a couple times before that?
MR. MATHESON: Yeah. I don't remember any specific instance. But the fact that I figured out that that's how to do it in this case, I would assume that at some point, I must have done it before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you did that, how much was in it?
MR. MATHESON: I determined to be present in the blood vial along with the centrifuge tube that was also in the package, for there to be 3.8 or approximately 3.8 milliliters of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you saw it on the 29th during the inventory --
THE COURT: Of June.
MR. GOLDBERG: --June, you said that there was two milliliters, and then when you saw it again on the 21st of September, you said there was 3.8?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there's a 1.8 milliliter difference?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you think that you could be 1.8 milliliters off in making a guesstimate as to how much was in the tube?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, how accurate do you believe you are in making a guesstimate as to something in one of these purple top tubes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: How accurate do you think you are in estimating how much is in one of those tubes?
MR. MATHESON: Obviously not very. I was far off.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. How do you know that the 3.8 was accurate?
MR. MATHESON: Well, because that, I used a--I used a legitimate technique to actually measure it as opposed to just holding a vial up and eyeballing it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that was the technique of filling the other vial up with water?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any idea what the margin of error is in that technique?
MR. MATHESON: In that technique, I would say it's probably--fairly small. That's why I said approximately 3.8 milliliters. My guess is is that the error on that would be less than .1 or .2 milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. Move to strike. He's guessing.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right, counsel. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, have you ever seen anyone else measure that vial in your presence?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not talking about by the test-tube method, but by any other method?
MR. MATHESON: Not that I recall.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the same date, on September the 29th--September the 21st rather, did you also measure the contents of the vial, no. 60 and also 59?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you use the same technique?
MR. MATHESON: The technique involving equivalent amount of water, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us the measurements on those two?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. For item no. 59, the blood vial, I found 7--approximately 7.2 milliliters of blood and for item no. 60, approximately 5.5 milliliters of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then on September the 27th, did you give--release some blood to a Defense expert Mr. Ragle?
MR. MATHESON: Again, referring to my notes, a handwritten receipt labeled L-309, yes, I did. I released approximately one milliliter of blood from item no. 59 marked "Brown Simpson, Nicole" and approximately one milliliter of blood from item no. 60 marked "Goldman, Ronald."
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you give anything else to Mr. Ragle at that time in terms of reference blood?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: At that time, I also cut out for him approximately a one-inch square section of each of item no. 72 and 82, which were the blood swatches that were provided to us from the two victims from the Coroner's office.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on September the 30th, did you release some more blood to Mr. Ragle?
MR. MATHESON: Referring to my notes, there is a handwritten receipt marked as L-310, and on that date, September 30th, 1994, I released approximately one milliliter of blood to Mr. Ragle from the tube item no. 17 marked "O.J. Simpson."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, how did you come up with the approximate of one milliliter for the 7--for the 27th of September and the 30th of September?
MR. MATHESON: For doing that, I used a what--a pipetter as opposed to the glass pipette which is not graduated or not measured. I mentioned before, we have mechanical pipetters so you can set to withdraw and deliver a specific amount of a fluid, and that's what I used in this case, transferring it from the vial into the centrifuge tubes previously described.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who Mr. Ragle is?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who is he?
MR. MATHESON: He is a retired--the previous director of the Orange County crime laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is he now--was he working for the Defense at that time?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, he was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, directing your attention to the date of January the 9th of 1994, did you return some evidence on that date from serology to the evidence control unit?
THE COURT: January 9, `94?
MR. GOLDBERG: `95. I'm sorry.
MR. MATHESON: Again referring to--there's actually many notes under that date and yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us with respect to the reference vials, item 17, 59 and 60 in this case, whether you returned those items in a sealed condition to the evidence control unit?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What other items did you return on that date?
MR. MATHESON: On that date, I returned--we had been storing up to that date many of the blood or biological evidence items in the serology freezer. And at that point, I inventoried and returned these items. I can go through the list if you'd like.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. I know it's a little time consuming, but if you could.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. There was one package that included item 72 through 74.
THE COURT: Is there a document that we can use instead for this purpose if there are multiple items?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know if there is a document that doesn't have significant other writing on it.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. MATHESON: In that same package, also contained item no. 82 through 85. There was one package that contained item no. 115 through 117, another package that contained item no. 170 through 175, another package to contain item no. 293 through 309, another package purported to contain item 118 through 120, additional package marked to contain item no. 78 through 80 and 86 and 87, another package marked to contain item no. 91, 93 and 94 through 102, a box that was marked to contain item nos. 1 through 9, 11 through 14, 20 through 34, 37 through 39, 41 through 45--
THE COURT: Slow down.
MR. MATHESON: --47 through 52 and 54 through 57. I believe that was the last one.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you returned those items to the evidence control unit, were they returned in a sealed condition?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they were.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion?
MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you are doing your testing, do you have to decide what genetic markers that you're going to test for in a given stain?
MR. MATHESON: Sometimes. It depends on the quantity.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you're going about deciding what kind of tests you're going to perform, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to include the suspect or exclude the suspect?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea--if you have to limit your tests due to sample size or some other consideration, the idea is to try and find the test that is more likely to exclude a particular person.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, why is it that you do it that way?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you want to get the most information possible. The idea is to find out whether or not a sample could or could not have come from somebody. And if you only have one shot on it, you want to do the one that's most likely to exclude somebody.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an example of picking a genetic marker to test for the purposes of exclusion as opposed to picking one in order to try to include someone?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. There's--we have a variety of markers that are available to us. Some are better at differentiating between two stains than other ones. Example might be an enzyme that goes by the initials of ADA. Approximately in the neighborhood of 94 to 97 percent of the population is a type 1. The remainder of the population is a type 2 1 or a 2. If you use that test, odds are, you know, 94, 97 of the time, you're going to get a type 1, and that doesn't give you a whole lot of information. There's another test that goes by the initials of PGM or PGM subtyping; that rather than having a choice of a 1, a 2 1 or a 2, you have 10 different possible combinations and your likelihood then of having--if a bloodstain in fact did not come from a particular person, the likelihood of excluding under that system is much better than the one I previously described.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you say that you're trying to pick out tests to exclude, what would that mean in reference to the--to examples that you gave us?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it means I would choose the PGM subtype system as my best choice of--between the two of them. Odds are, if I choose ADA, I'm going to include them because most people are the same type. My odds are better of excluding using the other system.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you've been using a term that you said--that you--a term called "Genetic marker." What do you mean when you're talking about genetic marker?
MR. MATHESON: Well, genetic marker is something that exists within the human body. The term "Genetic" means it's deprived from your parents. You have to have a certain combination of types because of the genetic information that's supplied to you by your parents. A marker just means something that we can use to identify something within the system. An example of a genetic marker is the ABO blood typing system. You're a type A, type B, type O or type AB. Your type is determined by the types of your parents making a genetic and it's a way of distinguishing potentially two blood samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you use this term "Genetic marker," are you implying in that that the tests that you have done are DNA type tests?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is the term "Genetic marker" used then?
MR. MATHESON: Well the term "Genetic marker" had been around for quite a bit longer than forensic DNA testing. Like I mentioned before, genetic merely refers to the fact that it's determined--you know, it's inherited, it's determined by your parents.
MR. GOLDBERG: So could you view something like eye color, different people having different color eyes as being a genetic marker? Would that be an appropriate usage of the term?
MR. MATHESON: As an analogy or an example, eye color could be considered a genetic marker. Your eye color is determined heredi--by heredity from your parents.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you heard of the term "Polymorphic"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: That refers to a situation where you have something within the body, let's say the ABO blood type system, that exists, performs the same function in every person but exists in different forms.
MR. GOLDBERG: So again--I'm not sure if this analogy would be proper, but could you view eye color then as being a polymorphism in that different people have different color eyes, but all eyes hopefully perform the same task?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. An eye, you see through it, but the eye color is different, but doesn't affect the process.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are these markers, these genetic markers that you're testing for, are they polymorphic?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are. Otherwise, there would not be a reason to do it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, how many of these polymorphic enzymes are used in forensic testing?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I'm not sure of the exact number. I believe we within our laboratory regularly use seven or eight, something like that. I'd have to refer to some notes to remember exactly.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there many more genetic markers in people's blood in addition to those seven or eight?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how are those chosen?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the choice as to what to use forensically is, you want something that gives you a good percentage breakdown of the population. In other words, the one I mentioned before, the ADA, is actually a poor polymorphic enzyme in that the majority of the people are exactly the same type. We use it for other reasons because it's very stable. You want a marker--it'd be perfect if you had one that had say four different types and each type was 25 percent of the population. You also need a stable--or a system in forensics that is stable because our samples by nature are outside the body. They are deposited in a variety of different places and begin to degrade. You want something that doesn't degrade very quickly.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Stable," is that what you're talking about, that they don't degrade as easily?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do these blood type markers that you're testing for, do they change through someone's lifetime?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not. They stay consistent.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it possible when you've done a test of a variety of these markers to calculate some sort of a percentage of the population that has those markers?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you used the term "ABO blood type system" and you gave us a description of that, and you said there are how many types?
MR. MATHESON: There are the four common types; A, B, O and AB.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in addition to this ABO system, is there another set of systems that you're looking at when you're testing for genetic markers?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are a variety of one that are called enzymes, which is a chemical that exists in your body to perform * function to help keep you alive, and there are a number of these enzymes that are polymorphic, exist in different types and can be identified.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you just give us a simple explanation of what an enzyme is?
MR. MATHESON: Well, an enzyme is something that catalyzes or makes a reaction occur. Simply, it performs a function with your body that your body needs to exist.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would this be an appropriate point?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess, brief recess for the morning. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations or allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll stand in recess for 15 minutes. And, Mr. Matheson, you may step down, sir.
MR. MATHESON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Let's have the jury, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the jury coming out?
THE COURT: I hope so.
(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. The record should reflect that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, yesterday you were testifying about using a process called electrophoresis?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell was that is?
MR. MATHESON: Electrophoresis is a technique that is used to identify the different enzyme types, these polymorphic enzymes that we were talking about before.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is electrophoresis used on ABO or just the enzymes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the case of the type of testing we are talking about here it is not used in the ABO, it is used in enzymes, and it is used in other purposes, too.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us an explanation of how the electrophoresis technique works?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like in the ABO system where you have different types that can be identified in these enzymes, they also exist in different types. An example being a PGM that I mentioned earlier, in its simple form it is a type 1 a type 2-1 and a 2. Each of these types differ slightly in their structure, in their charge. That is one of the ways we use to tell them apart. The electrophoretic technique involves taking a glass plate that is approximately about eight inches square, pouring what is called an agarose gel on it, which is kind of like a Jell-O like substance on the top of it, placing the samples on--you take small portions of the blood or the cloth, absorb it onto threads, insert it down into the gel all in a line.
this then is placed on that cooling bath and electricity is allowed to run through it from one side to the other in one direction and this basically kind of pushes the enzymes along and they travel at different rates based on this charge that is on them, the slight differences. After a predetermined amount of time, you stop that electrical process and put chemicals on it over the top that work with the enzyme so you can see where the bands lined up. In most of the systems you identify the type by the quantity and location of these bands on the gel and in some systems you do it as far as location and quantity along with the intensity or the darkness or brightness of each of the individual bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after running this electrophoresis gel, you get some kind of a banding pattern?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then what do you do with that banding pattern after it appears?
MR. MATHESON: Well, each different type of an enzyme will give a unique banding pattern so you are then able to interpret it. You don't just do it from memory, though. On each of those gels or each of the plates that I was talking about, which with the system that we have set up we can run up to twelve samples on it, out of those twelve samples three or four of them may be a control or known sample of all the different types that are present in the system. So you would have a situation where would you have a sample, a control, a couple samples and a control. That way you can make direct comparisons between your unknown sample and your known types and make the call and determine what type it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 215 for identification, another board entitled "Evidence testing demonstration."
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. 215.
(Peo's 215 for id = posterboard)
THE COURT: Can we put that up just a little bit higher?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: 1492, can you see that? Up a little.
JUROR 1492: That's fine.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to this exhibit 215 for identification, the first photograph, photograph no. 1, "Door to serology." May I have that on the elmo? What does that photograph depict?
MR. MATHESON: It depicts the door into the serology lab from that hallway from the chart that kind of goes around in a square around the laboratory itself. It is always--when you are talking about windows before, although there are no windows to the outside, each of the laboratories has a couple of windows that look from the lab itself into the hallway.
MR. GOLDBERG: So from the hallway you can see what is going on inside the laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: In most areas; some areas you can't see.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to cell no. 2 on this demonstration exhibit, what does that show?
MR. MATHESON: That is a photograph that is taken if you were to walk just inside the door shown in cell 1 and turn to the left. It looks down through the serology laboratory. What you see on the left is a personal work bench area or one of the areas of one of our criminalists. To the right you can just barely make out a little bit of a layout table, and then farther back on the right is one of our group or analytical areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you see where the electrophoresis machines are kept in this particular photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, you can.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, by using the pointer toward the right of the photograph you can see these reddish ends, those are all the electrophoresis cooling plates or cooling tanks that I talked about earlier.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to cell no. 3 on this exhibit, what does this show?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. As I described in the process before, in the electrophoresis, you pour a gel on a plate that is about eight inches square, something like that. That is depicted in the picture, one of those plates. The gel is on the glass part there that you can--actually can't see the gel because it is clear. Then there is a row of slits that are put in it where the samples are introduced. It is called loading the gel. Each one of these red marks that you see is indicative of either an unknown sample or a control or known sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: And going through the four items here, can you tell us where the unknown samples would be, as opposed to the known sample?
MR. MATHESON: Well, my practice in running a gel is I put an unknown in the first, a known sample in the second, unknown in the third and the fourth and then a known one would go in the fifth spot.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Unknown," you are talking about what?
MR. MATHESON: Anytime I refer to an unknown sample, it is an evidence sample. We don't know the results of it at this point.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the known is what?
MR. MATHESON: The known is a portion of blood where we know the source of that blood and we have already characterized and known what the types of them are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that what you used to compare the unknown against?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, after the plate is loaded, what is done with the plate?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The plate then is laid in this--or the fourth cell here that is marked "Electrophoresis." The white part in between the two red ends is a cooling plate. There is a bath or a mechanism not too far away from here which has a refrigerant in it which lowers the temperature of the water. The water is then circulated back and forth through these plates so that the electrophoresis gel is kept at a low temperature so it is laid on top of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And finally, if we look at the fifth gel where it says "Run gel," what is this showing?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. This shows a couple of different tanks side-by-side. The right one here has a gel laying on the cooling bath to actually run the electrophoresis system. There is white what are filter papers called wicks on either side of it. They are in a tank that has a buffer solution. The wicks are laid across the edges of the gel on both sides and then there is cords that go up to the power supply located toward the top of the picture and electricity is run through the buffer, through the wicks, across the gel and then back into the power supply. They have to be kept cold because most of our systems in this type run at approximately 350, 400 volts and that would--if there wasn't a cooling system, it would actually heat the gels up and dry them out and the process wouldn't work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if this were a real case and this evidence were to be run, what would you have to do after the item had been--the gel had been placed on the plate as depicted in cell 5?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that door, the Plexiglas door closed or what?
MR. MATHESON: Right. Like I mentioned, the wicks would have to be laid from the tanks on the edges of the gel. You close this lid because you don't want to come in contact with the voltage running through it, and the wires to the back of the unit are placed into the power supply which is above it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if we can go back to cell no. 4 for a second. Can you point out where it that is the samples are that have been loaded onto the gel in this photograph?
MR. MATHESON: They are a little tough to see, but you see that the gel is being held up, the gel is on a piece of glass being held up on its side, and the reddish spots that show up about two inches or so from the bottom of the gel.
MR. GOLDBERG: So are those closer to the analyst's right hand or left hand?
MR. MATHESON: They are closer to his right hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us using this photograph when the machine is hooked up and the electricity is actually running through it, can you describe for us what happens?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as like I mentioned in the description before, the current runs through it, there is a positive side and a negative side, and it runs from the positive to--correction * the negative side and a positive side. It runs from the negative to the positive side and the enzymes that are present in there, they are such that they--they move along through the gel at a slightly different rate, depending on the structure of them, and the structure is what determines the type.
MR. GOLDBERG: So which way do they move? As it is placed on the machine this way would they go from his right hand to his left hand or the other way?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it depends on the system. This system here that is setting up appears to be a PGM subtype system that we use and it would be running from the right to the left.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when they run from the right to the left, can you actually see some sort of a banding pattern with your naked eye after it is finished?
MR. MATHESON: No, you cannot.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you have to do in order to see that?
MR. MATHESON: After the run time you remove this gel from the cooling plate and you have prepared what are called development chemicals, and they are optimized for a particular enzyme system. The chemicals contain or the solution contains chemicals that react with the enzyme so that we can see them. Normally, if it is a visible thing that you can see with your eye in white light, it is a dark bluish almost black type of band formed. There is another type that react with what are called florescent chemicals and you have to look at them under ultraviolet light.
MR. GOLDBERG: After the plate is run and the development chemicals are put on, is something done to preserve that plate?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. The plate itself is not preserved; however, the results are photographed. They are actually photographed several times throughout the development process. It doesn't just pop up all at once. It slowly becomes visible in most of the systems and you take pictures along the way.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you read your results off the plate or off the photographs?
MR. MATHESON: Actually to some extent both. You read them from both.
MR. GOLDBERG: How complex is this technique--how complex was this for you to learn how to do this technique?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is not a terribly easy technique, but it also isn't difficult. I was able to--I mentioned yesterday a course that I took back at the FBI academy which lasted about two weeks in duration. During that two weeks I went into it with having used this technique maybe less than half a dozen times or so just practicing in the laboratory. And within the two weeks I became fairly proficient at running samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--thank you. You said it was possible to calculate the frequencies of people that have different genetic markers that you have tested. Is there a rule known as the product rule that you apply in doing this?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: What that is, is it allows you to determine the types of different markers you identify and it is possible, just through statistics, you know that going back to the ABO blood typing system that a certain percentage of the population is a type A, a certain percentage B and so this is also true of the different enzymes that I am talking about. So once you have identified the types, say, in two different markers, ABO blood system and maybe this PGM system that we have talked about, you can multiply together the percentages of each of the types that are present and come out with a smaller percentage of the population that has those two types together.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an example of that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, starting with the ABO system, about roughly half of the population is a type O or about fifty percent of the population. If it was the only test that was available to us, we can analyze a blood stain and determine that it is a type O and the best information out of that is that half the people in this room could have contributed that blood stain. Well, then we go ahead and run one of these additional genetic markers. Let's say out of that we identify a type that also exists in fifty percent of the population. Well, now we have two pieces of information. You can multiply those two together and now you know that that stain down there that is an ABO type O plus this other marker exists in about 25 percent of the population or about one out of every four people, rather than one out of every two. With each additional marker you add you keep multiplying that percentage and the number of possible people that could have left the stain gets smaller and smaller.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you had a third marker in your hypothetical that was also fifty percent, you would multiply 25 times 50 for 12 and a half?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object and move to strike that last answer as being lack of foundation and I think we need to approach on this.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct. With each additional marker, if it was half, you would keep cutting the number in half. It would go to one in four to one in eight to one in sixteen and so on.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this use of the product rule in calculating the percentage of the population that has a given set of genetic markers one that is accepted in the forensic science community?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: For how long has this been used?
THE COURT: Which?
MR. GOLDBERG: If you know the product rule in terms of applying it in this context with ABO systems and the other genetic markers?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, vague to "Other genetic markers."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the ABO system plus the other enzyme system that you typed?
MR. BLASIER: Vague.
THE COURT: Vague. What system?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you said that there are about eight or so enzyme systems that you type?
MR. MATHESON: That we have the capability of typing in our laboratory, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that pretty standard throughout the forensic community, that those are the systems that are used?
MR. MATHESON: With some slight variation, but yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the systems that are used in your laboratory, how long, if you know, has the product rule been used to calculate the frequencies of those systems together with ABO?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it has been used in our laboratory since I started, which was in 1978, and I believe the markers have been available, they have been used with each new one as it is developed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in terms of the conventional serology, and the electrophoresis tests that you have been discussing this morning, is there a problem with cross-contamination between the sample as you are doing the test?
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there a problem with cross-contamination as you are testing these items?
MR. MATHESON: If I understand what you are saying, I mean you always want to be careful that you don't allow one item to come in contact with another one so that you have the potential of transferring information between the two.
MR. GOLDBERG: How sensitive is this particular test?
MR. MATHESON: These--
MR. BLASIER: Objection without some definition.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: How much of a sample do you need in order to be able to test an item of evidence using electrophoresis?
MR. MATHESON: For the systems that we use, we need a sample that has, you know, some color to it, you know, towards a pale to dark red. Approximately a quarter inch long thread size is about the sample you need to get a good result.
MR. GOLDBERG: If we were to define contamination as being introducing something onto a piece of biological evidence that was to cause the evidence to be mistyped, what would you need to do in order to contaminate biological evidence using that definition?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the area of the conventional type of typing we are talking about, you don't get results with--with samples that you can't see. It would have to be sufficient quantity that you are visibly seeing that you are transferring sample from one to the other.
MR. GOLDBERG: So it would be something that you would visually see?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge has there ever been a problem of contamination as I have defined it, inside of your laboratory in the serology section?
MR. MATHESON: A problem as far as contamination in the conventional systems?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in the area of PCR testing, do you use kits that are manufactured by an outside firm?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who does that come from?
MR. MATHESON: The company has changed names a couple times. It was originally Cetus. I believe it is Roche Biochemicals now.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to those kits, to your knowledge, has there ever been any defect in the kits that you were supplied?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I was made aware of a time in our laboratory where we were getting results showing up in our controls and other areas in the process that was eventually, we believe, traced back to a particular lot of kits.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that prior to June 14th of last year?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation of how much prior?
MR. MATHESON: At least a couple months. I'm not exactly sure of the date.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was this problem?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we were showing a type within that system was typeable or becoming apparent in our controls in areas where we were not expecting to see any result at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you mean it was becoming apparent in the controls?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are controls built into the system that allow you to check whether or not the presence of contamination. Contamination is a fact of life when it comes to forensic samples, so you always have control built in, both the controls that are picked up at the scene, plus controls that are introduced at different stages of the testing that should come out blank when you are all done, should not yield a result. And if a result is obtained during--you know in some of these controls, it shows that there is some sort of contamination occurring.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did the controls in fact work for that purpose in this incident?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, was this an incident that you were personally involved in or had personal involvement with?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you ever read any documentation, around the time that it occurred, pertaining to the incident?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how was it resolved?
MR. MATHESON: I was advised by the people that were doing the tests that upon receiving a new lot kit from the company we were no longer seeing that type showing up in our controls.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "A lot," what are you talking about?
MR. MATHESON: Well, when things are produced or manufactured they put a lot number on it so that you can track. I would assume they came from the same batch of chemicals or whatever in the factory, but it is an assigned lot number to a sequence of reagents or kits.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, going back to a conventional testing for a moment, in the area of conventional testing does the laboratory take proficiency tests?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what are those?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we subscribe to a couple of different outside companies that supply us with unknown samples. One of them is collaborative testing service and the other is cap or the College of American Pathologists. They send us case-like samples. We don't know the results of them. And as supervisor I would receive these items and either, if there was sufficient sample, divide them up between a number of the analysts within the laboratory, or if it was a small sample, assign to it one particular analyst, and they would test them, we would then submit our results to whatever company it happened to be, and then I get the results back from them at a later time.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you also take proficiency tests in the area of PCR testing in your laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how is that done?
MR. MATHESON: The similar process. As a matter of fact, the--both CAP and CTS are gearing them more now toward the DNA process than conventional.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have those proficiency tests been passed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, we were talking a little bit about the substrate controls and the use of the controls yesterday. When you are doing your conventional testing, do you use those controls in any way?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do, for part of the testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: For what part do you use them?
MR. MATHESON: I use them during the course of determining whether or not a sample is human and in the ABO testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you use a substrate control, when you use substrate controls in this case, did you use the entire cloth square or a portion of it?
MR. MATHESON: Just a portion.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with it in order to take a portion?
MR. MATHESON: I would--I open up the bindle that contains it and I would make a cutting from it that is appropriate size for the tests that I want to run. I may not do a cutting. Sometimes I will actually take tweezers or forceps and tease out a couple of the threads or fibers that are present.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that used in the ABO system?
MR. MATHESON: Because it is known that there are things out there besides ABO substances that will give activity or results that can mimic or look like ABO. Certain types of cloth can tend to give you what is called a false positive for an ABO antigen which is one of the things we look at when we are typing for the ABO system and you want to know if the surface with your stain on it is going to have this type of activity present.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was the laboratory using substrate controls prior to the use of PCR technology?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was it because of the ABO system for the reasons that you just described that you did?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about for the other genetic markers that you are typing? Do you use the substrate control for that?
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why do you not use them for those?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as opposed to the ABO system where I mentioned there are things out there that can mimic the same type of activity, that is not true for the enzyme systems that we use.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about the idea of testing them for the purposes of determining of whether there was any type of contaminant on the substrate control? Why won't you do that when you are testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I do use it for the human test, and if that comes up negative, there is no biological material present that would give me a result.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you expect to get any result on electrophoresis, if you saw a substrate control that had no visible blood on it?
MR. MATHESON: Of we are talking about a blood stain, no, I would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in June and September of last year did you do certain testing on some of the items bearing the DR number of this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you generate reports related to that testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I this time I would like to mark what's called the "Serology results" chart as People's next in order.
THE COURT: That will be--
MR. GOLDBERG: 216.
THE COURT: 216.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to People's for identification, have you seen this chart before?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, didn't we mark this earlier as 202?
MR. GOLDBERG: The chart?
THE COURT: Miss Martinez confirms that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, you do.
THE COURT: All right. People's 2 02. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 202 for identification, does that summarize information that was contained on reports that you generated in connection with your testing in this case?
MR. MATHESON: It summarizes information from the reports, plus some additional information from some of the notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, starting first with the notes, what kind of notes do you generate when you are testing items contemporaneously with the testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is--while the testing is going on what is prepared is a serology case summary sheet which will eventually have a summary of all the results on each of the items. While I'm doing this I'm referring to some notes I have of my analysis from June of 1994, just so I can make sure I can remember all the different forms. So I described this as a serology case summary sheet. There is also what has been previously described "Serology item description notes." Those are the notes where we give a little bit more detailed description of the actual item. And then there are what are called electrophoresis work sheets that are created during the electrophoresis process. Each plate that you saw earlier will have a sheet that goes along with it to identify the different samples and where they are located on the gel. There may also be just note pages, blank pages. Sometimes we will write on the back of some these for some additional information.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are the notations, the notes that you just referred to, ones that have been labeled with "L" numbers and provided to both sides in discovery?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Umm, now, which are the reports that are done at the time of the test? Which of the two types of reports that are done contemporaneously with the test?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the type that is done contemporaneously with the test, the electrophoresis work sheet which would go along with each of the electrophoresis runs I described. There is also I mentioned that sometimes we will take notes on the back of a page. In the ABO blood typing test we don't have necessarily a form where that is recorded. A lot of times we just write the raw data on the back of one of the other pages and that is done while you are actually doing the analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what type of information or where did the information come from that was used to compile this chart? Was it just the reports, the analyzed evidence reports or also the electrophoresis work sheets?
MR. MATHESON: I believe information that went onto this report came from my reports--or were put on this--came from my reports--a combination of that, the case summary sheet and the electrophoresis work sheets.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does this particular chart contain test results of testing that you did between June the 27th and 29th on the reference samples, 17, 59 and 60 and also item 49?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who actually did that testing physically?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it depends on which part you are talking about. I did some and then I observed some placement and some of the actual hands-on work on the electrophoresis was done on Mr. Yamauchi.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say that the electrophoresis was done by Mr. Yamauchi, what did he do? Was it in your presence?
MR. MATHESON: Most of it was; not all of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you see him doing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, one of the most important parts of that test, as far as sample continuity, is recorded on the electrophoresis sheet which sample goes in which lane and then making sure that the sample you are saying is on this sheet is actually in that lane. I sat alongside of him while we sampled, you know, opened up, in the case of, say, item no. 49, opened up the bindle, cut a small portion from the swatch, it was then placed into a numbered well which corresponded with a number on the electrophoresis sheet. And I watched him then transfer that into the gel along with the exemplar samples and the known standard samples that were included.
MR. GOLDBERG: So he did the physical manipulations in terms of loading the gel?
MR. MATHESON: When it came to the electrophoresis work, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was in your presence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then what happened after the gel had been run and the results were ready to be read?
MR. MATHESON: At that point he took photographs of them. When I was available I co-read them with him and we determined what types were present on the plate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, do you recall testifying about the tests when you testified at the preliminary hearing in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, directing your attention to page 4 of the preliminary hearing on July the 8th, 1994. I would like to read between lines 2 and lines 23.
MR. BLASIER: Page 4, what line?
MR. GOLDBERG: Between 2 and 23.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does the Court have a copy?
THE COURT: Yes, I do, page 4. Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Prior inconsistent statement. Well, hold on for a second.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: You are saying 1235 is an exception?
MR. GOLDBERG: (Nods head up and down.)
THE COURT: Is that yes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, at the preliminary hearing did you testify as follows to the following questions? "Question: I think where we left off yesterday I think you indicated that you tested item 49 which was the blood drop from the trail left at 875 South Bundy shown in the close-up of photograph e and shown in the perspective in photograph D. "Do you recall saying that? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: And you tested--and you tested that initially to determine if it was human origin? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And with respect to the blood samples that were retrieved from the Defendant and from Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, with respect to those samples, did you test them also? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: What test did you perform on those? "Answer: On those I performed the ABO blood typing test, the group 1 enzyme electrophoresis test and the PGM subtype electrophoresis test. "Question: And did you also subject the blood drop from the trail, item 49, to those same tests? "Answer: Yes, I did."
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall that testimony?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when you answered those questions did you specify that the physical loading onto the gel was actually done by Mr. Yamauchi in your presence?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why not?
MR. MATHESON: I didn't think it was necessary.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were the two of you working together as a team in doing this?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we were.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you observe all of the critical parts in the analysis?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you feel--were you trying to mislead anyone or leave Mr. Yamauchi out in answering those questions in that way?
MR. MATHESON: No, not at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it common in your laboratory for analysts to work together in the laboratory using a team approach such as that? Does that happen?
MR. MATHESON: It happens, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where you observe the critical aspects of what the other analyst did?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that what happened with respect to the typing on 17, 59, 60 and 49?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, did you also generate an analyzed evidence report describing the testing that you did and Mr. Yamauchi did on these items?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark that as People's next in order. It is L-7778 for counsel's benefit.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, next in order, People's--
THE CLERK: 216.
THE COURT: 216.
(Peo's 216 for id = analyzed evid rpt)
MR. GOLDBERG: It is entitled "Analyzed evidence report." The date the analysis completed is 6/28.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: We are going to have to lower the serology results chart a little bit in order to put this on the elmo.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: It may be necessary to remove it entirely.
MR. GOLDBERG: To what?
THE COURT: Remove it entirely, but let's try that. Let's try that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you recognize the document that we just put on the elmo, People's 216 for identification?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: That is a copy of my analyzed evidence report.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this analyzed evidence report generated--when was this generated in relationship to the testimony at the preliminary hearing that we just read?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it was generated immediately following testing prior to the preliminary hearing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we see the full--first full paragraph where it starts with "ABO testing was performed."
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, did you write this form?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And could you just read for us what you wrote in the first full paragraph saying--that starts "All ABO typing."
MR. MATHESON: Well, the first paragraph is just that one line that says, and I am reading from a copy of the report myself rather than off one of the monitors: "All ABO typing was performed exclusively by Matheson, B-8927."
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the next paragraph starting with "Criminalist Yamauchi"?
MR. MATHESON: The next paragraph starts with: "Enzyme typing for ESD, PGM, PGM subtype and GLO were performed by criminalist Yamauchi, G-880. All evidence handling, including original sampling and transfers to the gel, were witnessed by Matheson. All results were confirmed in person or by photographs by Matheson."
MR. GOLDBERG: So did you--why did you write these two paragraphs to describe what you did and what Mr. Yamauchi did?
MR. MATHESON: To be accurate as far as exactly who performed what tests for the report.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you wrote this paragraph out prior to testifying at the preliminary hearing where you said that you did the electrophoresis tests?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you. Now, we have been using the term "Reference samples." What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: The way I use it is it refers to the known blood sample or blood samples of a known source related to a case.
MR. GOLDBERG: And our serology results chart, how are those designated?
MR. MATHESON: The reference samples that are designated on the chart are first indicated by the item number and then in parentheses by the person that they were taken from.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the little blood drops would designate what?
MR. MATHESON: As far as the icons go, the blood drops reference a stain or evidence material.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you do these tests are you comparing the results from the reference samples to the results that you get on the unknowns that are designated with these little blood drops?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in September of 1994 did you also do another series of testing on items that are represented in the People's serology results chart?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. I started some testing in September.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on September 11th what item numbers that are on the results chart did you test, if any?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. On September 11th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: Was when I started working on item no. 42, item no. 44, 50--item no. 54, item no. 84-A and B and item no. 85-A and b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on September the 20th did you do some testing on items that are contained on the serology results chart?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm going to be referring to my notes. I received some additional items on September 18th. As far as doing the analysis, yes, there was some analysis done on September 20.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which items?
MR. MATHESON: That would be on item no. 13 and item no. 37.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say 13, on the chart we have 13-A. Is that the little cutting that you testified to earlier this morning?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: That you took off the--one of the socks, item 13?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you also do some testing on September the 27th on items that are contained on the serology results chart?
MR. MATHESON: Again referring to electrophoresis work sheet, I did run some samples on that date, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which ones?
MR. MATHESON: That would be item no. 57 and item no. 78.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where were those items stored during the testing that you did in September?
MR. MATHESON: They were in the freezer in the serology unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with regard to these various items that are on the serology results chart, when you were looking at the Los Angeles Police Department evidence--evidence disposition summary boards, People's 177, did it contain the packaging of these various items represented on the photographs on those exhibits?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were doing the testing was the--were the items coming out of the original packaging or the transmittal packaging that was used later on when it was sent out?
MR. MATHESON: I believe out of the original.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in each case did you look at the item number and DR number prior to the test to confirm what you were testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, going back to the serology results chart, there is a column that says "ABO." What does that refer to?
MR. MATHESON: That refers to the ABO blood typing system that I have described previously.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what does "ESD" mean right next to ABO?
MR. MATHESON: ESD are the initials for one of the enzymes that we analyzed that I previously described.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: The same thing. It is an enzyme that can be broken down into types.
MR. GOLDBERG: And EAP, what does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: EAP are also initials standing for another enzyme that we use.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is in the "Consistent with" column?
MR. MATHESON: Consistent with are a list of names that are placed there when a comparison could be made between the evidence samples and the exemplar or reference samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the "Frequency"? What does that represent?
MR. MATHESON: Frequency gives an indication of how common that combination of types occurs in general population.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on this particular chart there is a number of items that are in blue that say "Inc." What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: "Inc" stands for inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: How is that reported when you actually write out an analyzed evidence report?
MR. MATHESON: Any result that is determined to be inconclusive at the time that it is run is written strictly as either inc or inconclusive on the report with no indication of the type given.
MR. GOLDBERG: So it wouldn't say on your analyzed evidence report, for instance, for item no. 42, "Inconclusive b"?
MR. MATHESON: No, definitely not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where does that information come from?
MR. MATHESON: It comes from a combination of the case summary notes and the original electrophoresis work sheet.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, why don't you write exactly word for word what is on the electrophoresis work sheet and the case summary notes onto the analyzed evidence report? Why don't they match a hundred percent?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the electrophoresis work sheet is just that, it is a work sheet that is being used while the test is being run. You are recording the conditions of the test and you are recording all observations and in--not interpretations, but observations that are made on the plate. We even include guesses at that point. Our--and if it is a guess, it is marked as inconclusive. That information then is transferred over to the summary sheet intact, kind of summarizing the information on the work sheet. If it is inconclusive, it is marked as "Inc" and the potential or possible guess of the type is placed in that column. However, when a report is written, it just reflects "Inconclusive."
MR. GOLDBERG: So is an inconclusive statement, if it says "Inconclusive B," does that mean that it could be wrong?
MR. MATHESON: It is possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that why you say inconclusive?
MR. MATHESON: Well, inconclusive means just that, it is not a conclusive decision or conclusive result as to what the analysis showed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that mean that as a forensic scientist when you say something is inconclusive, let's say on your work sheet, you said it was inconclusive B, would you be willing to report in Court that it was in fact a b?
MR. MATHESON: No, I would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Again, it is not a conclusive result. I don't want to put something down on my report or present to Court unless I'm sure as to what the result is.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what is the point then of writing "Inconclusive B," for example, on the electrophoresis work sheet if you don't put it on the analyzed evidence report and you are not willing to testify in Court that it was in fact a b?
MR. MATHESON: Well, because it is information. First off, the work sheet, like I described, it is things you are recording as you are reading it. I mentioned earlier that sometimes the band, they get darker with time and what may start out as a type with a question mark, or an inconclusive, over time may become a conclusive reading as it gets darker and more easy to read. There are times where you will record something as a potential inconclusive or with a question mark and that is the way it stays; it just never gets any better.
MR. GOLDBERG: What kind of information can those provide, though?
MR. MATHESON: Well, potentially it can show--give you an idea what might not be there but it is still not a conclusive result.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, we were talking about degradation yesterday and whether or not a degraded sample could turn from one blood type into another. Do you recall that conversation?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you said that that is not a problem except with respect to one of the genetic marker systems. What did you mean by that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the majority of the markers that we look at, like I mentioned, as they degrade they just get weaker and weaker and you can't determine a type. It doesn't change into another type. The most notable exception to that is in the system that goes by the initials of EAP. EAP is the type of system that I mentioned before that there were situations where it was the location of the band or the number of bands that tells you what type it is and there are other ones that deal with intensity of the bands. EAP is one of those types of systems. You look at the intensities and take that into consideration when you are determining what the type is. So in the case of EAP, it is known that a degradation route occurs where the bands become less and less intense and can eventually be mistyped.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the PGM subtype, do you have those same issues in PGM subtype that you have in EAP?
MR. MATHESON: Not when it comes to evidentiary samples. It has been shown that liquid blood stored for a long period of time, you can start slowly losing the minus bands. You will notice under the PGM subtype there is a plus and a minus indication. It is possible to eventually see the minus bloods degrade but that does not occur in dried samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in dried samples such as a stain, what happens in the PGM subtype system when you get degradation?
MR. MATHESON: The bands just become weaker and weaker to the point where when you develop it on the gel you just don't see anything.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you have a situation in the PGM subtype where the bands have degraded so that you can see something there but it is an inconclusive?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, sure. That is another use of inconclusive, is that we know something is occurring where you can see that there is something there. Another indication we have goes by the initials of NA or no activity. If you see kind of a hazy appearance in the band area, you can't say no activity because something is going on, so it would be recorded as inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: So let's just take one example, item 13a that has the PGM subtype of 1 plus. Now, this was--is this a result that you classify as being inconclusive or is this a final result?
MR. MATHESON: That is a final result.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what does that mean, as opposed to an inconclusive result in this particular case?
MR. MATHESON: It means that the blood stain that was present on that item is a PGM subtype 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, could it have been something else and degraded into a 1 plus?
MR. MATHESON: Not in my experience and knowledge, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this particular case the 1 plus would be consistent with whom?
MR. MATHESON: Well, of the three parties that are on this chart, it is--can be--is consistent with the type that we found for item no. 59, Nicole Brown, and is inconsistent or definitely could not have come from the item no. 17 or in 60, Mr. Goldman.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting back to this issue that we were talking about on degradation, what about the ABO--what about the ESD results? Can degradation cause those results to change from one pattern to another?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about ABO?
MR. MATHESON: Not in ABO either, you won't get a change of the type.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you have the four systems that we have here. Is EAP the only system that has this problem that you have been using where the degradation can make it appear to be something other than what it really was?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, is this phenomena that exists within the EAP system, but not the others, one that is recognized in the forensic science literature?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you read articles that discuss the special issues that are inherent in the EAP system?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you read a chart, Mr. Matheson, that was by Dr. Grunbaum and Zajac entitled "Problems of reliability in the phenotyping of a erythrocyte acid phosphatase and bloodstains."
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you consider that as part of this forensic science literature that we have been discussing that deals with the issue with EAP?
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you spell those items for the Court reporter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Grunbaum is G-R-U-N-B-A-U-M and Zajac is Z-A-J-A-C. The article is "Problems of Reliability of Phenotyping," P-H-E-N-O-T-Y-P-I-N-G, "Of Erythrocyte," E-R-Y-T-H-R-O-C-Y-T-E, "Acid Phosphatase," P-H-O-S-P-H-A-T-A-S-E.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, it is erythrocyte acid phosphatase what we are designating with the initials EAP?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in our preparations in our sessions where we discussed the case prior to your testimony, did you teach me at some length how to pronounce that term?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: How did I do?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the article that we just talked about--
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm showing you an article that we just read the title of. Is this one of the articles that you looked at?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on page 617 of that article does Dr. Grunbaum discuss some of the issues that you have been explaining to us this morning about the EAP system?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you read for us the first full paragraph of what Dr. Grunbaum says.
MR. MATHESON: "Although only a limited number of samples were used in this initial experiment, the results shown in table 1 clearly indicate that there can be a definite problem with the EAP phenotyping no matter which electrophoretic supporting medium is used."
MR. GOLDBERG: What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the electrophoretic supporting medium is in the case that we showed, the example agarose, there are just different types of terms that it can be run. The paragraph just indicates that there can be problems with this--using this system.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you read the second full paragraph.
MR. MATHESON: "Unlike other enzyme systems, EAP phenotyping depends not only on a pattern of relative distribution of bands but also on the relative intensities of the bands. When blood is aged, the individual isoenzymes" those are the bands in it, "Tend to degrade at different rates, further, exacerbating the difficulties of true phenotype identification."
MR. GOLDBERG: I think you have explained this already in your testimony in different terms; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, basically.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And with respect to the last full paragraph under "Summary," can you read that for us?
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry, are we talking about the underlying part or the paragraph itself?
MR. GOLDBERG: The paragraph.
MR. MATHESON: "Erythrocyte acid phosphatase is a useful system for the crime laboratory for both fresh and degraded blood and bloodstains, provided the inherent problems of phenotyping this particular enzyme system are recognized. Because of the great number of variables affecting this enzyme system in vitro, phenotyping should not be attempted until the complete history of origin and handling of the sample is known."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the last point about not typing erythrocyte acid phosphatase unless the complete history and origin of the sample is known, what does that refer to?
MR. MATHESON: Well, his reference there I believe is suggesting that you should not be doing this until you know exactly what the history of it is, which means where it was deposited, potentially the length of time, the conditions it was under, as opposed somebody just walking into a laboratory with a blood stain.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object and move to strike. No foundation that he knows what that author meant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, within the forensic science community is there a--are there analysts that believe that you should know the complete history and origin of a sample before starting EAP testing--before making an EAP conclusion?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you understand that to mean in terms of your reading of the article and your interpretation of the article?
MR. MATHESON: Well, my reading of that, I understand as being suggested that it is important to understand the history behind a sample, what conditions it was collected and preserved under.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where do you stand on that particular issue as to whether or not that is necessary?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I kind of sit in the middle of it. There are differences of opinion of this and this has been an area of discussion when it comes to dealing with samples and serology in general, in that some people feel it is very important that the criminalist not be biased by any sort of outside information or receive a blood stain, you know, cold without anything and you just report the results that you find. There are also those that believe, as indicated in that article, that it is important to know the background, the story behind how the sample was deposited and taking all of that into account. I don't really believe in either extreme. I don't particularly like to work in the dark. That is very difficult to do. However, I also appreciate the fact that you do not want your opinion biased in anyway by any information that isn't directly related to the evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to the EAP system you were talking about that in this system, that not only do you look at the bands but you also look at the intensity of the band; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that distinguish it from PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in PGM subtyping it is the location of the band, where it appears on the gel in relation to your known standard, as opposed to how strong or how light the bands are.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you are not looking at the intensity or brightness the band when you are talking about PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Given that you are looking at the intensity of the band on EAP as opposed to PGM subtype, is there some element of subjectivity in terms of making a call as to an EAP result?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, not only do these systems differ in intensity versus band location, they are also developed differently. The PGM system is developed, you get a dark blue, almost black band that you look at under visible light. In the EAP system the band you are looking at, you have to look under ultraviolet light, and rather than being dark they are actually a light source, they are bright. And people's eyes see different things, as far as the intensity of what they are looking at. It is a very subjective call.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you don't have that problem, though, with PGM--
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: --subtype? What about with ABO or is this applicable to ABO?
MR. MATHESON: There is no comparison to ABO on this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's --
THE COURT: 217.
MR. GOLDBERG: --217, another board that says "EAP phenotype board."
THE COURT: All right. 217.
(Peo's 217 for id = posterboard)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, can you lower it down a little bit so perhaps we can also put some pictures on the elmo later on.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, showing you People's 217 for identification, what is this exhibit?
MR. MATHESON: What this exhibit shows is a block diagram or kind of a graphical representation of the six most common EAP phenotypes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, maybe we could just take a look at the photograph on the evidence testing board again that shows the plates on the electrophoresis machine. While we are waiting to put that up, can you go through the six common phenotypes and just explain to us--well, first of all, I know you have already described this, but a phenotype is what again?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is the type that is observed on the gel. It is identified for the eventual reporting.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can you tell us what the six common EAP phenotypes are?
MR. MATHESON: They appear on the right-hand column there; type A, type B, type C, type BA, type CB and type ca.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you are testing a system using the EAP system, is it--does it fall under one of these six types generally?
MR. MATHESON: Generally it does, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
MR. MATHESON: If--
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you can take a look at our evidence testing board, we have a photograph of items being loaded onto the gel. Can you just orient these two exhibits for us and tell us I mean how this would correlate?
MR. MATHESON: Well, to put the two in relation to each other, if you were to take the electrophoresis plate that you see up there and rotate it ninety degrees to the left, we are just putting the sample in what we refer to as the origin--the origin, the place where the sample starts, and that would correspond in the EAP diagram to the line or the area that is marked with the word "Origin" right above it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then you were talking about how after the electrophoresis machine is hooked up, the sample begins to migrate across the gel and that it creates a banding pattern. Can you describe for us what that would look like using the EAP phenotype board?
MR. MATHESON: Well, using this as an example, you would start at the origin--we have already mentioned lanes, and a lane would refer to an area where a sample is placed and then it moves. It moves along in roughly the same size and shape or configuration as where you originally put your sample. So in this particular example we have six lanes that are marked by the six different types. Your sample would be placed in the origin well, at the origin, a current would pass through it and the different portions of the enzyme would be moving along. And at some point you stop that and develop it and you see the bands and their location.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that when you are looking at this plate you look not only at the placement of the band, but also intensity. Can you describe that for us using this diagram?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the--it is a block diagram and it is not an actual photograph or something of a plate. It is just a graphical representation of it. We look at intensities in the system. We also look at locations, where the bands appear. It is a combination of the two. As you can see under the lane that is marked "A," the block diagram shows bands in different places than in the B. I also want to point out at this point that we show a block appearing on the far left of it in each of the lanes. This is just consistent with every type and is insignificant when it comes to determining what the type is of the sample. So you see that the location difference between the a and the B, however, also graphically demonstrated by this, is the fact that they are of different sizes and the sizes are an indication of the intensity. You will notice in the a that they are about equal size, they show about equal intensity or brightness. The B, the larger block band, would show up as significantly brighter than the smaller block band in the B column, and that is consistent throughout the rest of the items.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I was so excited about this EAP block diagram I didn't see that we had run over.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:00. Mr. Matheson, you are ordered to return.
(At 12:04 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
Los Angeles, California; Tuesday, May 2, 1995 1:00 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties including the clerk are again present before the Court. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I had one issue I wanted to bring up if I may.
THE COURT: What is that?
MR. GOLDBERG: As to--there's an item 118 in this case that was tested by Mr. Matheson and there has not been any testimony about it in this case heretofore. It was a knife that was found in the area of the Defendant's house, but not on his property, which was tested and has an EAP type B similar to the nails. I think it may have been mentioned by Mr. Cochran in his opening statement. We would ask to exclude evidence of that knife under 402 and the testing results.
THE COURT: You don't need to do that now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's part of an analyzed evidence report that I would like to show the witness and there is reference to it there and I would like to be able to sanitize that out.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. We--this is the same report that has all the results that they're testifying to. We intend to ask this witness about the other EAP B that came up on this knife with blood on it, and I don't see how he can limit the testimony to just a couple of things that he tested and not include other things he tested at the same time. The credibility of this whole argument depends on how you read EAP testing and how you read the bands, and that's relevant to 118 as well and I think it's clearly fair game.
THE COURT: Which evidence report are we talking about?
MR. GOLDBERG: Which analyzed evidence report, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's the analyzed evidence report that's dated 10-18-94.
MR. BLASIER: It's the one I submitted yesterday I believe as well.
THE COURT: All right. I don't know anything about the facts and circumstances regarding the recovery of this alleged knife.
MR. BLASIER: It was found in--outside of Mr. Simpson's estate on July 2nd, apparently had been put there at some point after the 13th. It had a lot of blood on it, is consistent with the wounds on the victims, turned over to the police and they ran the test and came up with an EAP B. I also would like to request that the Court order that that be produced tomorrow for cross-examination.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I correct counsel's representation to the Court? There was a single thread of tiny speck of blood on the knife, on the very tip of the knife.
MR. BLASIER: It doesn't matter, but I'll make an offer of proof that the person who found it will testify that there was a lot of blood on it.
THE COURT: Where was this found?
MR. BLASIER: It was found near a brick wall I think toward the back of the Rockingham estate kind of down the way from the * I believe the Rockingham side. It clearly hadn't been there the 13th. I mean, it was in relatively plain view and someone had put it there. It was wrapped in a polka dotted outfit or blouse I believe that I believe also had blood on it, although I don't think that was tested.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the point of this is that it's entirely irrelevant. That's the problem. If what we have on the knife--excuse me, Mr. Blasier. If what we have on the knife is type EAP B, then obviously it's not of either of our victims. The victims in this case are BA and I think BA.
THE COURT: Is there a reason you are arguing this rather than Mr. Goldberg?
MS. CLARK: Because I looked into this issue when Mr. Blasier informed me that he was going to be raising this issue with the Court and Mr. Goldberg was in the process of examining the witness and so wasn't--didn't have the opportunity to inform himself of the issues as I did. It's just more expeditious if I address it than if I sit and whisper in Mr. Goldberg's ear and have him address the Court. So what we have is an item of evidence that is entirely irrelevant based on the testing that was done.
THE COURT: All right. Prosecution--neither side may mention 118 until I have some more information about where it came from, when and what it is. Prosecution is ordered to produce that item in Court tomorrow morning.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And would the Court also like some documentation as to the time and method of recovery, et cetera.
THE COURT: We're not going to use it until I know where it came from. All right. And as I indicated, this is the first mention of this item to the Court.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: May we have permission then to use a redacted copy of the analyzed evidence report at this time pending the Court's further ruling?
THE COURT: For today, yes. But I want all the reports produced tomorrow and the item. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, depending on the Court's ruling, we may want--we would ask for permission to reopen if the Court were going to allow this in, because I do expect to finish my direct sometime--
THE COURT: Today.
MR. GOLDBERG: --in the mid afternoon.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll take that--you know, once we see what it is, we'll see. But since I know nothing about it and this is the first I've been advised of the existence of this item--but I would rather use the time with the jury to finish at least the basic blood testing.
MS. CLARK: And we'll complete direct subject to the Court's determination on that item?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The record should reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gregory Matheson, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Good afternoon, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY Mr. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. We were talking about erythro acid phosphatase and the different phenotypes. Now, is there a particular pattern in which EAP type b--excuse me--type BA is known to degrade?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in general, the a bands are more labile or less stable and next comes the B and the C. So in the case of the type BA--excuse me--the--they're all losing activity to some extent, but the a bands being the most labile, the most sensitive to degradation are going to disappear first before the B bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, when a sample is deposited at a crime scene, when does the degradation process start?
MR. MATHESON: It starts immediately as soon as the blood leaves the body.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is it common in the Los Angeles Police Department to test samples in the serology section that have some degree of degradation in them?
MR. MATHESON: I would say every sample to some extent has some degree of degradation occurring.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the degradation is to the extent where one marker is no longer typeable, but you're still able to type another marker, say you can't type EAP, but you can still type PGM subtype, does the fact that one of the markers has been lost in any way undermine the confidence of the results and the PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: No, it doesn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I--with the Court's permission, I wanted the witness just to show us how these items degrade by--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --drawing on this diagram. Does the Court want a permanent record of that by using the acetate?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Matheson, maybe you can step down and pull the acetate over and just--
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object without some further foundation as to how he knows this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just have him what?
THE COURT: Foundation as to his knowledge regarding the manner in which these things degrade.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have you read articles regarding this degradation issue with respect to the EAP?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: When did you first become familiar with it, the issue?
MR. MATHESON: I first became aware of it in a class that I mentioned I took at the FBI academy back in 1982, the degradation route of this particular system.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was it well known in the forensic community in that time?
MR. MATHESON: It was included as part of the curriculum. So I believe so.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. In addition to that kind of study about this phenomenon on EAP, have you yourself personally witnessed it as a serologist working in the Los Angeles Police Department serology laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: How so?
MR. MATHESON: There--I've witnessed the phenomenon or this condition to occur in a couple of cases. One that comes to mind was a case in which a number of markers were run. The only difference in any of them was in the EAP system, a similar type of thing where had it been a BA, it would have been consistent with the party that we had reason to believe it came from. We got results in the rest of the markers. They matched. The EAP exhibited a type B which gave us concern about it knowing that that was the degradation route. That was one example of where we feel we've seen it in casework.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I wanted to ask you about this degradation route, and maybe just using arrows, you could just write out what the degradation route is with respect to a type BA, how it degrades. Maybe you can just write out the letters BA and just show us with arrows.
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: You said that a type BA can degrade into a B. And so I'll just write a little arrow down to B (Indicating).
MR. MATHESON: A BA can degrade until it can be--look like or be confused with a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And maybe I may have been phrasing some of my questions inartfully. Does the type actually change or is it the appearance that changes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's the appearance. It's what we are seeing as far as our development is what actually changes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is this phenomenon of BA to B one that you have seen in your work and also that's been noted in the forensic science literature?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But does it happen the other way around? I mean, can you get it to degrade from the B to a BA?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there is a define degradation route with respect to this marker?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, the a bands are the least able, then comes the B and then the c.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, maybe you could just flip that acetate over for us.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And there are some magnetic strips. Can you tell us using the BA type phenotype on this diagram, show us how it would appear, how it would degrade to appear as a type b?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as I mentioned, a bands in a degradation process would be the ones that would start disappearing first. So eventually you get to a point--you notice how this one is significantly larger. It's the most intense in the BA. Eventually you would have a loss of these two bands as it degrades and gets weaker. It also to some extent has some lessening in the intensity of this band (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just stop you for a second. Okay. The first two items that you put on where you put cover-ups over the a bands in the BA system--
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --can you tell us where the B bands in that system are in the B band?
MR. MATHESON: The--it's a combination between these two, but this is the major B band (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: So you're referring to the diagram and you just pointed to the--started from the right side of the diagram, what would be the first block and the third block?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you've covered up the second and the fourth blocks?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you show us using this diagram the comparison between the B and the BA where the a bands are?
MR. MATHESON: Again, using just the block diagram showing relative locations of it, once the a bands have degraded, these stay in the same position, which are in the same position as the B bands and you can see the relevant intensities are such that the upper band--
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, one of the jurors is having trouble seeing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we could--
THE COURT: 1492, are you having problems seeing that?
JUROR NO. 1492: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can kind of lift this a little bit. Can we move this over here, your Honor?
THE COURT: Move it up.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe with the Court's permission, we could just go over this portion one more time, of his testimony.
THE COURT: Hold on.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Briefly since there's an indication that the jurors in the back row didn't see this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's take the magnetic strips off. Now, there were two magnetic strips that you put on the type BA phenotype first. Can you do that again?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm going to be placing a block covering on the type BA covering over the two a bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you say "A bands," does this diagram indicate in some fashion that those are the a bands?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Right across the top of the diagram, it's indicated the different bands, AB, a and c.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And once the a bands are covered on the type BA, does that then begin to look like any other pattern that's contained on this chart?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What pattern?
MR. MATHESON: Well, then you can see that the general location is still the same as the B pattern and the relative intensities between the two bands is consistent in that the third one from the right is more intense than the first one from the right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then you put on a third cover?
MR. MATHESON: Well, this is merely to indicate--the degradation is occurring on all the items. So you're actually going to have some lessening of the intensity of this B band, but it's still--in relation to the other one, it's going to be brighter, more intense.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you see this particular pattern from a degraded BA sample on electrophoresis plate, can you tell that it's been degraded by looking at the plate or what does it look like?
MR. MATHESON: Just by looking at the plate, as long as both bands are there, no, you can't. It still looks like a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that one of the bands for the type BA phenotype is under what appears to be c?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the identification of either a type B or a C is independent of its location. In other words, if you have a band that shows up in the 1 or the 3 position, just the mere presence of a band doesn't indicate whether it's a B or a C or a combination of BC. It has to do with the intensity. The C, the band farthest to the right, is most intense in brightness and B, the one towards the left, is most intense in brightness.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. You can resume the stand. Okay. So if there is a slight decrease in brightness of what you're calling the second B band on the type BA in the degraded sample that you've created with the cover-ups, why would that still be called as a type b?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's just slight degradation. You'd call it a B depending on the intensity differences or relationship between the band on the far right and the third one. As long as the third one is more intense than the first one, then it's a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this the manner in which this phenomenon of mistyping a BA as a B can occur?
MR. MATHESON: As far as my understanding, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what you are doing here is, you are looking at the relative intensity on the type BA phenotype between the B in comparison to the band that is under where it says c?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the existence of those two bands?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What two things--what things are you looking at other than intensity in calling the b--in calling the BA as a b?
MR. MATHESON: You've looking at band location in the absence of the a bands. If the a bands are not present and you have a band in what's described up there as the C column and the B column and the B-1 is more intense, then it's going to be called a B. It looks like a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we're looking at the true B phenotype, which is more intense between the band under where it says C and the band under where it says b?
MR. MATHESON: The one under b.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that why this is larger on the block diagram?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That indicates brightness or intensity.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And then if you compare the BA degraded phenotype to the B phenotype, is the relative intensities of the respective bands the same?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, in that the one under the B column is brighter than the one under the C column.
MR. GOLDBERG: In both of them?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, if it is known that the EAP system has this problem, why is it used for forensic testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it still has some value in that you can get information out of it. If you don't have a degraded sample, it's a very good system because of the way the different types break down like I mentioned before in the percentages and it is a reasonably robust system in that it is detectable in stains and that type of thing, plus it can be analyzed along with other enzymes. There is no problem with using something like this as long as you're aware of its limitations.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what are its limitations?
MR. MATHESON: Just what we've been discussing, in that you can get selected degradation that can cause one type to look like another one.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you're doing the EAP testing, do you have to consume any additional sample in order to run this test?
MR. MATHESON: It depends on how you run it. There are what are called single systems where when you run your electrophoresis plate, the only thing that you analyze for is say the EAP system. In this particular case and with procedures that we have in place in our laboratory, we have a system that allows us to run PGM subtyping and EAP using the exact same sample, the exact same gel. So it doesn't use any more sample to get this information.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in this particular case, were you able to get the EAP information without consuming any additional sample?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Over and above what you were using in PGM subtyping?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that of concern, as to how much sample you're using?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that's always a concern when it comes to forensic serology. You don't want to use any more than necessary. You preserve as much of the sample for either retesting or confirmation at a later time.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I would like to return to the serology results board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, what were the EAP results on the reference vials in this case?
MR. MATHESON: The results on item no. 17, reference blood, marks coming from Mr. Simpson, EAP type BA, item number 59 from Nicole Brown, EAP type BA and item no. 60, Mr. Goldman, is an EAP type a.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if the suspect in a case is a type BA and you have run the test and it looks like a B when you run the test, does that include or exclude the suspect?
MR. MATHESON: It excludes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, given the known degradation issue that you talked about with respect to the BA type, can you say that the suspect did not contribute that sample?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in and on the face, if you know for a fact that it is a type B and cannot be a degradation product, then yes, it does in fact exclude him. If you can not totally eliminate the fact that a degradation did occur, then you can't use that as an absolute excluder.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you can not eliminate the possibility of degradation, is a type B result an exclusion of a suspect who is type BA?
MR. MATHESON: It's not an absolute exclusion, no. You just have to keep in mind that you are seeing a B, but a degraded BA is a possibility.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark a copy of the analyzed evidence report. It's People's 218 for identification.
THE COURT: All right. Analyzed evidence report.
(Peo's 218 for id = evidence report)
THE COURT: What's the date on the report?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is page 3 of the report that was dated September--September 18th.
THE COURT: September 18th.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I'm going to put a 217 on the reverse side of that. Excuse me. October 18th.
THE COURT: This is 218? 218.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have to lower the serology results board again. While he's doing that, Mr. Matheson, did you do some testing on the fingernail scrapings, some fingernail scrapings, item no. 84-A and b?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And I want to ask you some questions about your report as to the results on those items. Can you see the paragraph that says 84-A and b?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that relate your findings with respect to the fingernail scrapings underneath the fingernails on 84-A and b?
MR. MATHESON: It's a narrative explanation of the results, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?
MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?
MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let us see the serology results board. Hold on.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's put the board up a little bit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you were saying that you could exclude, of the three individuals that we have the reference vials for, everyone except Nicole Brown as to item no. 84-A and B, the nail scrapings; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now using this chart, can you show us where the PGM subtype result is for the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if you go across from the column marked 84, 84-B, there's two empty squares and then you get a notation of a 1 plus. That is under the column marked "PGM subtype."
MR. GOLDBERG: And why do you say that you can exclude Orenthal Simpson as being a donor of that particular material?
MR. MATHESON: Because in the PGM subtype system, he is a 2 plus 2 minus and the result obtained on those was a 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in reporting that, have you looked at our chart and compared the 1 plus under 84-A and B to the 2 plus 2 minus under 17, Orenthal Simpson?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can point with the pointer so we can all see where you're looking at, please.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The results on the two evidence items, 84-A and 84-B, are in this column right here like I described before, three over from the item description, 1 plus and 1 plus, and up in the top under the same column, PGM subtype opposite item no. 17 is the notation 2 plus 2 minus.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us how it is that Ronald Goldman can be excluded as a donor of 84-A and b?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's in the same system. The two evidence items again gave us a 1 plus and a 1 plus. Mr. Goldman was a 2 plus 1 plus. So in the absence of the 2 plus here, he can be eliminated as a source of the blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you can not eliminate Nicole Brown as being a source of the blood?
MR. MATHESON: Again, on the nail scrapings, the PGM subtype is a 1 plus in both instances and she was bound to be a PGM subtype 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what about the difference in EAP type?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as noted in the report, initially she is excluded. However, we also have to consider the fact that BA can degrade to look like a B. So on face value, on the results that were obtained, she can be excluded. However, taking into account the degradation route of that particular enzyme, I would not do a total exclusion on her.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark as People's next in order an electrophoresis work sheet that contains a reference to 84-A and b.
THE COURT: All right. People's 219.
(Peo's 219 for id = work sheet)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'll just place a 219 on the reverse side of this.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, what is the document that we're looking at now?
MR. MATHESON: What you're seeing is kind of enlarged portion of a section of a work sheet that we have that's called electrophoresis work sheet.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was part of this document filled out by you?
MR. MATHESON: All except for a couple of initials is filled out by myself.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the 85-A and 85-B results--excuse me--84-A and 84-B results. That's the fingernails scrapings we're talking about; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what did you write on the electrophoresis work sheet when you filled out this document with respect to those results?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. Under the column that's marked EAP, there's two rows of letters. The one on the left is the row that I put in when I first read the plate, and opposite--you go from the left to the right reading--it's got the DR number associated with this case, 84-A and 84-B on those two lines. You'll notice that the first column under EAP has a B with a question mark on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that what you wrote?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does the question mark signify, because I see you have it a number of places?
MR. MATHESON: It indicates that on my first reading, I wasn't sure. It looked like a B, but I wasn't absolutely positive of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you had that question in your mark--question in your mind that caused you to put the question mark on the electrophoresis work sheet?
MR. MATHESON: Well, on this particular item, I believe the bands were on the light side and kind of defused, they were a little fuzzy. They just weren't good looking bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can just put the EAP block diagram up again. It's not going to work. I'm going to have to learn how to work this easel.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, when you looked at the electrophoresis plate when you were testing item 84-A and B, with respect to the bands at the end that all of the phenotypes share in common, were those present?
MR. MATHESON: I believe in the case of at least one if not both of them, that band was either very weak or not present at tall.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you show us what it looked like using the block diagram and the magnetic--
MR. MATHESON: Well, basically it would have bands in the area consistent with the standards for the two B bands and then this area up here was--there was nothing present.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are those bands called, the bands that all of the items share in common that are represented on the left side of the EAP phenotype work?
MR. MATHESON: I've always understood them to be called storage bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any diagnostic significance to them in terms of trying to figure out what the item in question is?
MR. MATHESON: They have no bearing on what the type is, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: But in this particular case, that band was not there?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: What else about the bands looked strange to you or different to you that caused you to write the question mark?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they were just not very distinct. They're on the light side and they were not very obvious distinct bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you wrote the analyzed evidence report, do you--why don't you just simply transpose whatever is on the analyzed--on the electrophoresis work sheet onto the analyzed evidence report and call it as a B question mark?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I previously mentioned, this is a work sheet. It's something that's created during the course of our reading the bands. These plates are never run or read alone. You always have somebody co-read it, and that's what this second column is for. And then the information that's put on the final report is the final conclusion of what is seen to be present.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you are testing a blood sample and you get a result from a known--if you got a result from a known blood sample that you knew to be type BA blood that was identical to the result that you got in 84-A and 84-B in this case, how would it be called?
MR. MATHESON: If I understand the question right, you're saying I have two samples, one of which I know is a type BA?
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say you have one sample let's say from someone in your laboratory that you're using as a reference sample and they're a known type BA. Yet when you test it, you get the same result that you got on 84-A and 84-B.
MR. MATHESON: It would be an indication that that blood has degraded, that we have a problem with it.
MR. GOLDBERG: How would you call it though?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in this case, I know what it's supposed to be and I would not call it a result from that.
MR. GOLDBERG: But would it look the same in appearance or could it look the same in appearance as to what you saw in 84-A and 84-B?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could degraded blood, BA blood give the same appearance as what you saw?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it could.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there any--when you're making your call for the purposes of your report, do you consider at that time anything other than what you saw on the plate itself?
MR. MATHESON: Not as far as the result that's put down, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Because that's the result. You know, when--when you have something that is present, particularly in the case of electrophoresis, on the plate, it is readable, it's giving a type, then that is the type that needs to be reported.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the suggestion by some analysts that you should also take into account the history and the origin of the stain? Do you do that at that particular point in time?
MR. MATHESON: To some extent. That's why the second part of that paragraph initially excluding, but then with the proviso of the fact that it is only exclusion if it's not a degraded sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: So at the time that you wrote that paragraph, did you take the step of taking a look or trying to take a look at the history and origin of the sample in question 84-A and 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the main fact that I took into account is where the sample came from, and that was under the victim's fingernails.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you take a look at any crime scene photographs at that time, the time that you wrote your report?
MR. MATHESON: Not at the time I had written the report, but I have seen many photographs of the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Since then?
MR. MATHESON: Since then and prior to then, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of looking at the history and origin of the stain from a forensic science standpoint, is there anything else that can be done in order to resolve the issue of 84-A and 84-B by looking at other samples at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: There is some information that can be derived from that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And specifically what?
MR. MATHESON: Looking at other evidence items that were collected. Particularly those where we feel we know the source of the blood sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you do that in this case prior to testifying today?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just take down the--
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I would object to this line of questioning, the scientific basis, on 352.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, while we're putting it up, the date on the analyzed evidence report relating the findings on 84-A and B was what?
MR. MATHESON: The date analysis completed on that report is October 18th, 1994.
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, you have to be careful. You almost got no. 1 there. Juror no. 1, would it be better if we moved everybody down one seat? Would that be more comfortable for you?
JUROR NO. 1: It's okay.
THE COURT: You're okay?
JUROR NO. 1: That's fine.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, directing your attention to the diagram we just put up that says "Bundy drive biological evidence," it's People's 165 for identification, have you looked at the photographs relating item no. 42, which is at the bottom, the third photograph from the right?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was it your understanding from the crime scene photographs that this was the area in which Nicole Brown had been located prior to her body being removed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you also hear any evidence to the effect that when that stain was recovered, that Mr. Fung described it as being tacky?
MR. MATHESON: No, I didn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, if I were to tell you that there was some evidence to that effect, would the fact that it was tacky have any significance from a standpoint of the amount of degradation you would expect in that area?
MR. MATHESON: Well, using the term "Tacky" by him and given the time that it--well, first off, tacky to me would mean that it had not dried as opposed to some of the other samples that were present and that being a liquid is one of the worse conditions for biological samples as far as degradation goes. So if that sample was tacky at the point it was collected, it means that it had been damp for an extended period of time and potentially some degradation has been occurring.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is it that wet samples are more likely to degrade than dry samples?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it allows the degradation process to occur much more quickly. That's the environment that it likes to occur.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And would it be proper to take into account testing that you did--well, first of all, did you do some testing on item 42?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be proper to take into account test results that you got on that in resolving the issue of the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and b?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: In the forensic science literature, is there any recommendation of looking at a pool of the victim's blood or blood on her clothing in resolving degradation issues?
MR. MATHESON: Looking at blood that's known to come from a victim, yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Because it is blood that leaves the body around the time that the event occurred. It is known to be that person's. It's kind of like a reference sample that enters the environment at the same time as the evidence samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge, was item 42 collected as a circumstantial reference sample of the victim's blood?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And from a forensic science standpoint, would it be appropriate to look at test results on that blood for the purposes of resolving what was happening under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it wouldn't resolve it, but it would allow some additional information to be obtained, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, because it is blood that is believed to be the victim's given its location and quantity and like I mentioned earlier, entered the environment at the same time as the rest of the blood samples at the scene or relatively close to the same time, and thus it should reflect the types that we get in the exemplar samples, the reference samples that are taken from that person.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you expect the blood in item no. 42 to have been exposed to the same environmental conditions as the blood under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: To some extent.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Obviously they're not in the exact same spot. There's going to be some slight variations, but the general temperature of the area is the same, the humidity and that type of thing.
MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention now to item no. 57, which is described as being a label and the call out line is--that's been testified to as being in the area of where Nicole Simpson's body would have been, did you also do some testing on that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And similarly if that were located in the area that contained pooling of what appeared to be the victim's blood, could you also take a look at 57 the same way that you described with respect to 42?
MR. MATHESON: Not exactly the same. It's not in the immediate area. It's a little bit further away. We're starting to get a little more separated. The fact that it is directly connected or in relation to a pool would add some weight to being able to use it for some additional information.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to item no. 54 for identification, which is in the area of the gate, there's a photograph of criminalist Mazzola in the lower right-hand corner and a call out line showing where that came from. Would that item--would you expect that to have been subject to the same environmental conditions as the blood under the fingernails and on the pool?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, objection. No foundation that this witness has that knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It appears that that sample is up on the gate. It's going to be subjected to the same general environmental as far as weather conditions and such. However, the fact that it is separated from the rest, it appears to be an isolated spot, probably dried faster would be an indication that the conditions were not exactly the same.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the fact that it dried faster would mean what?
MR. MATHESON: Less likely to have any form of--or the extended degradation as samples that were still wet.
MR. GOLDBERG: At this time, I would like to mark the what we've called the fingernail or nail scraping board, your Honor, which had some graphic or one graphic photograph on it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can leave - Can we just put it up --
THE COURT: All right. The fingernail board we'll put over here.
MR. GOLDBERG: I have 220, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. No. 220.
(Peo's 220 for id = board)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have an objection, foundational objection I would like to approach on.
THE COURT: As to the nail board?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: With the Court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Yes. He's attempting to analogize 42 with fingernails.
the only testimony that's been elicited concerns the tackiness of the blood on the ground. He's not demonstrated that the conditions of collection, the manner of preservation, the conditions of the fingernails are in any way the same as the blood on the ground. Therefore, any testimony that you can somehow analogize these two samples together would be inappropriate for lack of foundation.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: What, your Honor?
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought the Court already ruled on this, and we argued extensively about it. But what the evidence shows is the bare hands are put in physical contact with the blood, and as I argued previously, are contiguous and continuous with the blood, and then explaining why Mr. Matheson believes it is legitimate to draw inferences about 42 and under the fingernails will do that. Showing the picture will do that. It is the simplest way of conveying that testimony.
THE COURT: All right. Objection is overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, this has a victim's photo on it. I don't want any still photos of this item.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, directing your attention to the exhibit that we just put up, the nail clippings, scrapings of Nicole Brown--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may I put these photographs on the elmo, on the overhead?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Because I want to put the middle photograph on first and then the two side photographs.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, why don't you go ahead and work with the exhibit that you have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, directing your attention to the middle photograph on this board on the bottom, have you looked at that crime scene photograph before?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And assuming that this is an accurate representation of the location of the body when the police arrived and photographed it and the blood area underneath the body, can you tell us why it would be proper to take a look at your results on item 42 in providing more information about the fingernail scrapings?
MR. MATHESON: There is obviously a large quantity of blood present from the victim both in the immediate area and in and around her hands.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does it appear from this photograph that her hands are in contact with the--or at least her right hand is in contact with the pool of blood?
MR. MATHESON: Part of it is, yes, appears in the back.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, looking at the photograph on the left--right of this board of the left hand--excuse me--right hand--no. That's the--okay. We'll look at the left hand. Okay. Right hand. Have you looked at this photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does this photograph help to explain why you feel it would be proper to look at what was happening with your testing on 42?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it helps point out that there is a large quantity of victim's blood present in and around the hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: And next looking at the left hand photograph, have you looked at that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And again, does that help to describe why you feel it would be proper to look at what was happening on stain 42?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is that?
MR. MATHESON: The same reason. There's a large amount of blood present on the victim's hands presumably from the victim.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, next I would like to look at the photograph that says, "Right hand fingernail scrapings." I think we're going to have to use the elmo for that. Now, Mr. Matheson, is this the Coroner's packet from which you took the items that you tested as 84-A--excuse me--as 84?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what portion of that you used?
MR. MATHESON: Well, on opening up the package, there would be a small amount of debris that would be located in the package from the scrapings. That's what they are. They take the stick and they scrape under the nails and scrap into a bindle. So you would have a little bit of debris down inside of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did this look like?
MR. MATHESON: Like small chunks of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's difficult to see them in this. Can you see any of those chunks left in this photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's hard to say. There are some specks. Mainly, there's some scrapings where the wet blood had been scraped off of the stick onto the paper.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you notice when you saw the bindle the what appears to be red or brown stains on the bindle?
MR. MATHESON: On the inside of it, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What significance if any does that have?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it suggests that the blood was probably damp at the time the scrapings were made and wiped off in the inside there.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that significant from a standpoint of trying to learn more about what happened to the blood under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as I previously mentioned, it's a damp condition that most hastens degradation. And if it was still damp when these were taken, it means that it had been damp for quite a while.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's take a look at the left hand fingernail scrapings photograph. Now, on this particular photograph, can you see some of the specks or any specks that are consistent with what you tested?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you point them out for us?
MR. MATHESON: There appears to be captured in the little fold here of the bindle little black specks that would be dry specks of blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that what you saw at the time that you opened up the bindle and tested a portion of the specks in that bindle?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you ever see in either of the bindles anything that looked like tissue or skin?
MR. MATHESON: I did not see any, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the other photographs that are of the fingernails, that appear to be of the fingernails themselves, does it appear that there is staining of blood on the underside of the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: The very heavy staining on the right hand, nail clippings, and there is some lighter but definite staining on what appears to be three of the nails marked as left hand fingernail clippings.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the right hand was the hand in the photograph that is in closest contact with the pool of blood?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a quick look at the left hand fingernail clippings if we can. And there's also some staining on what appears to be the left hand fingernail clippings?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct, on at least three of them.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is it possible to use the serology results chart simultaneously to the Bundy board or does the Court want us to--
THE COURT: Well, I want counsel for both sides to be able to see the object that we're working with is the problem. Can we set up the easel in here, for example, so that counsel can see it at the same time? The problem is, then we get away from the jury. So given the size of these monsters, I think you're sort of stuck with one or the other.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's just try putting--why don't we try putting the Bundy--the serology results board over the biological evidence board to make it easier to shift back and forth.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, taking a look now at item 42--
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, can we get that up just a tad? Great. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: On item 42 in your analyzed evidence report, how was that called?
MR. MATHESON: Referring to my report, under the EAP, item no. 42 was called inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this report is dated when?
MR. MATHESON: The completion date of October 18th, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's the same report that we previously discussed when we were discussing 84-A and 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the serology electrophoresis work sheet, what did you put on that work sheet when you were discussing the EAP results on 42?
MR. MATHESON: I would like to refer to that sheet.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. Maybe you can also look at the item description, the serology description note too.
(The witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: Okay. For item no. 42 under the EAP on the electrophoresis work sheet, one reading that I made was of a B question mark inc or inconclusive. The secondary reading from another criminalist was a no activity. The--
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--
MR. MATHESON: The information that I transferred over to the summary sheet was of a B question mark and then the notation, very weak with an inc for inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, why did you put both the question mark and an inc on this result?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's just--it's an indication to me that it is--it's a very questionable result.
MR. GOLDBERG: What's the difference between a question mark and an inc?
MR. MATHESON: Depends on where it's written. I mean, inc or inconclusive is sort of the final decision based on the other information. The question mark is put there as an indication to me that I'm not sure of what it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, what did you see when you ran the sample, item no. 42? What could you actually see on the electrophoresis plate?
MR. MATHESON: I saw two very weak bands in the general area of where I would expect to see the two B bands with the top one being slightly darker than the bottom, but they were very weak and real kind of fuzzy or whatever. It was not a band. It was just kind of a haze in that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: But were there in fact two perceptible although hazy bands in the area where you expect to see the two B bands?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there was two something going on there. There weren't really bands, but there was something occurring in those two areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And what did that indicate to you, Mr. Matheson?
MR. MATHESON: Well, just like I said, I had the two bands or appearance of bands in the general area where B should occur, which is why I put the B question mark. But it was nowhere near something that I would call. That's why it became inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the reference sample on Nicole Brown's blood, that was a BA; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you tested item 42, did you see any evidence of the a bands?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what happened to them?
MR. MATHESON: Well, going off the assumption that item 42 was in fact collected as a secondary exemplar reference sample, it should have come back to be a BA just like the reference sample that was received from her from the Coroner's office. So it appears that 42 degraded to the point where the a bands were no longer visible and almost degraded to the point where the--or, you know, lack of sensitivity where the b's were starting to fade away to nothing.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what significance if any does that have in terms of understanding what was happening on 84-A and B, the nail scrapings?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the significance is, is the phenomenon or the situation that is known to exist with the EAP system, and that is this degradation result of a BA to a B, did in fact occur in a--or it's possibly occurring because of the inconclusive in a situation regarding a sample at this scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this. If you have a situation at a crime scene where the victim is lying in a pool of her own blood and that blood, her pool of blood is shown to have degraded from a type BA to the point that it contains two very faint bands which are most consistent with a B and then you also have fingernail scrap--what can you say about the material underneath the fingernails that appears to be most consistent with a b?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I just mentioned, the fact that you do have what appears to be degradation occurring in a sample that we know came from a person of a certain type, this phenomenon has shown that, you know, it does appear it's existing even at this location, it applies some reason that you can carry this through potentially to other items in the--that were elected in the same vicinity at roughly the same time.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MR. GOLDBERG: So let me just see if I can understand what you're saying.
THE COURT: I think we've asked this question in about eight different forms now.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know. But it's--
THE COURT: About how it degrades.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's a little complex, and I just want to make sure I understand what Mr. Matheson is saying.
THE COURT: Well, we're not here to see if you understand, counsel. We're here to see if the jury understands, and we've heard this question in eight different forms now. Let's move on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Mr. Matheson, with respect to the item number that's labeled 57 that was described as having come from the area just east of where the body was, what were your results on that?
MR. MATHESON: Referring again to my report, the results for the EAP on item no. 57 were inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: And according to your electrophoresis work sheet, what were the results?
MR. MATHESON: In the first column, has a B question mark inc, second column is just inc for inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on that particular sample, what did that one look like?
MR. MATHESON: If I called it a B inconclusive or a B question mark, that means that there was something appearing in the two areas of the B bands or I expect to see B bands with one, the B region being more intense than the c.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 57, did you get a result off the PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: A 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it proper to take a look at what was happening on that item, 57, in the EAP enzyme system to determine or to provide more information about what was happening on the fingernails?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Improper foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, did you consider this result in providing more information in terms of what was happening under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as item 57, it didn't come much into play but it came into consideration of the fingernail scrapings.
MR. GOLDBERG: But the PGM subtype would be consistent with the victim, yet the EAP inconclusive would be inconsistent theoretically?
MR. MATHESON: If that inconclusive result was a conclusive result, then there would be--would be not consistent with the victim in this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that tend to show that at this crime scene, there is degradation of the EAP marker from a BA to a b?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Leading also.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that tend to show that there was degradation on this particular sample, item 57, at this crime scene?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does that show in terms of degradation on this sample, item 57?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, just the inconclusive in and of itself regardless of the type indicates that either some sort of degradation is occurring or there's just not enough sample to get a result.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the B provide any more information?
MR. MATHESON: Not in and of itself, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 85, did you also do some testing on that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what testing did you do on item 85?
MR. MATHESON: I did the same electrophoretic run as previously described. It included the PGM subtype and the EAP.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the result of the PGM subtype on item 85?
MR. MATHESON: There are actually two separate stains that are marked 85, 85-A and 85-B. In both instances, the PGM subtype was a 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you write down not in the analyzed evidence report, but on the electrophoresis work sheets as to the result and the EAP?
MR. MATHESON: This is for item no. 85-A and b?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: The column that recorded my initial results was a B with an a question mark, the column of the second read or the other criminalist was a BA.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the second criminalist called that as a BA?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why were you not willing to call that as a BA?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if you remember, the bands that we showed in the chart or the BA, we should have four bands of basically certain types of intensities. I've seen a number of these type of samples over the years, and the a bands were significantly weaker than I would have expected them to be in a classic BA given the intensity of the B bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you exclude this or could you exclude this as being certain other phenotypes of a common EAP phenotypes?
MR. MATHESON: The EAP on 85-A and b?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Well, the fact that there were bands in the a region, assuming it's not a mixture, it could not just be a B, it could not just be a CB and it could not just be a C, and given the intensities, it was probably not a ca.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there are five common phenotypes? Was it five or six?
MR. MATHESON: I believe there were six.
MR. GOLDBERG: So could it be any of the common phenotypes other than--could it be any of the other common phenotypes other than BA?
MR. MATHESON: Not if it's a sole sample, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does this test result provide any additional information with respect to what was happening on the fingernail sample?
MR. MATHESON: It could.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: On this particular sample, I don't know for a fact what the original source of the blood is. However, I am getting four bands that are in the positions and relative sensitivities of a BA. The difference here is is that the a bands are significantly weaker. If it is blood from a single source, it had to have started out as a BA, but those a bands have started to degrade or lose sensitivity. If they had gone any further, we would have a situation where the BA would again start looking like a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: So on this particular sample, if the a bands had in fact degraded somewhat more than they were, what would you have called it as?
MR. MATHESON: Then I would have called it as a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why would that have been called as a B if the a bands had degraded to the point where you could no longer detect them?
MR. MATHESON: Because then all that would be left would be the two bands that appear in the region where you expect to see the B bands, one band being properly greater intensity than the other.
MR. GOLDBERG: So, Mr. Matheson, based upon the totality of your results that you've discussed with this EAP enzyme and also the viewing of the crime scene photographs, do you have an opinion as to whether the fingernail scrapings were in fact a true B or more likely to have been a true B or more likely to have originally been a BA that degraded into a b?
MR. MATHESON: Given everything, including the results, I would say it's more likely than not that that blood was in fact a BA, that it's the victim's blood, however, I can not totally exclude the possibility that it is a EAP type b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the basis of that opinion, that it's more probably the victim's blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I just said, looking at the photos, a lot of the victim's blood present. If we were just to look at that and not do an analysis on it, I think common sense would tell you that that's going to be the victim's blood under her own fingernails. However, that's not a terribly scientific approach. We still run the test. We don't assume what it is. The test came up with this type B. That is in fact what was seen on the gel. So it cannot be totally discounted. But I would say it's a very high likelihood that that is the victim's blood under the nails.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, given the results that you've discussed so far as to the fingernail scrapings and the other items that we talked about in terms of EAP, is there anything further that can be done from a forensic science standpoint in order to provide even more information on this issue?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what's that?
MR. MATHESON: Continue to run additional tests, find out if you can in fact exclude the victim under another system.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you talking about conventional or are you talking about DNA tests?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you could do both. However, more information would be derived from subjecting it to DNA typing.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge, was this one of the samples that was in fact sent out for DNA testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the opinions that you've expressed in Court, have you considered any DNA results or are your opinions based exclusively on the testing that you did and the photographs that you viewed?
MR. MATHESON: It's been strictly on the information that I have regarding my own testing and the photographs and conditions. I did not consider any sort of DNA results.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would this be a good spot?
MR. GOLDBERG: It would be, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a brief recess for the Court reporters. Please remember my admonitions to you. And we'll reconvene in 15 minutes. Mr. Matheson, you are to return in 15 minutes. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(the following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are now present, including the Court reporter. All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And let me see counsel, without the Court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(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 been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Matheson, you are reminded again you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may conclude your direct examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, does the serology results board that we have been discussing contain the results on every single item that you tested or just some of them?
MR. MATHESON: Just some of them.
MR. GOLDBERG: For instance, did you test an item 115 through 117?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you get any test results--did you get any results on that or was that an inconclusive from your analyzed evidence report?
MR. MATHESON: If you are referring to my analyzed evidence report for item no. 115, 116 and 117, I got no activity for all three items in the PGM subtype system and inconclusive for all three items in the EAP system.
MR. GOLDBERG: Those, to your information, were stains on the rear gate at the Bundy location or don't you know?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in a stain that was--if we assume, for the sake of your testimony, that 116, 115 and 117, you can sort of see them on the left side of the Bundy board, were in fact located at the Bundy location but not collected until July the 3rd, would you expect there to be more degradation on the conventional markers of the kind that you typed than on other stains that were collected on the 13th of June?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do environmental conditions cause some degradation on dry stains as well as wet stains?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. The best way to store it is frozen and dried.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you expect there to be some degradation on the conventional markers and those stains between July the 13th and--excuse me, June the 13th and July the 3rd?
MR. MATHESON: If they were not stored frozen, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to 117, when you tested that item, did you notice anything about the way that the swatches were contained inside the bindle?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: That when I first opened it up it appeared like there was just one swatch present in the bindle, but upon closer examination and peeling them apart there was actually, I believe, three.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you testified earlier about an inventory that you did in June, I think it was June the 29th of last year; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have 17--15, 16 and 17--excuse me--115, 116 and 117 for that interview--for that examination?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you have also--we have also asked you some questions about the reference vial, item no. 17. Over the noon hour did you fill up some reference vials with a colored liquid, some vacutainer reference vials?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 2--
THE COURT: 221.
MR. GOLDBERG: 221.
(Peo's 221-A for id = vial)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I can do it as a and b.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: 221-A appears to be the more full of the two vials.
THE COURT: All right. Have you shown those to Mr. Blasier?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: I have seen them.
MR. GOLDBERG: So I have marked the less full of the two vials as 221-B.
(Peo's 221-B for id = vial)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, showing you 221-A and B, are these the vials that you filled with water at the noon hour?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there some kind of food coloring--is this a biological sample in here?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there food coloring or something in it just to make it easier to see?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I would like to show you these two vials, and can you tell us, starting with 221-A, what you did in order to create that demonstration exhibit.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, foundation as to these are the same size as 17.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, are these--these are vacutainer vials; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is the brand name of them, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are those approximately the same size as the monoject vials that are also used, purple-topped vials?
MR. MATHESON: They appear to be, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: I object to further questions; lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Briefly, yes. I agree.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just show you Defense 1124 for identification. Can you just take a look and compare the monoject with the vacutainer.
MR. MATHESON: Just doing a visual comparison of the monoject brand to the vacutainer brand, the monoject appears to be maybe a 16th of an inch shorter and the diameter appears to be roughly the same.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can just rest them on the--I mean stand them up on the counter just so that we can see the height comparison.
MR. MATHESON: Placing them side-by-side on the counter so the glass is on the bottom, the monoject stopper is partially extended, it isn't all the way seated, but it appears that they are very similar in height and circumference.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, when you looked at the vial, were you actually looking to see whether it was an vacutainer or as opposed to a monoject or are all these purple-topped vials, as far as you are concerned, the same?
MR. MATHESON: Are you talking about when I looked at it on the 29th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: I wasn't looking at the brand name, just the fact that it was a purple-capped vial about this size.
MR. GOLDBERG: So on the 29th did you make certain assumptions with respect to how large the purple-topped vial is?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your assumption?
MR. MATHESON: That it was a ten milliliter tube and that is that full it would hold ten milliliters of liquid.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the assumption based on?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure. It is just an assumption I have held for many years.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Have you ever tried to test it by filling up a vacutainer or a monoject to see exactly how much it holds?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Has that ever been a pertinent issue in any of your past case work?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the vacutainer tubes that you filled up, can you tell us what you did?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. In both instances I took the caps off of them. I was supplied with from the laboratory a pipette, or like I described earlier, this particular one can deliver exactly one milliliter of fluid, so I set it to one milliliter. And in the one that was marked 221-A I delivered 3.8 milliliters of fluid, three thousands or--
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can you hold that up so the jurors can see the amount of fluid in there?
MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Basically delivering, you know, three one-milliliter portions and then one .8-Milliliter portion. In the other one, which is marked as 221-B I delivered two one-milliliter portions for a total of two milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, how do you know that the portions of water that you used in order to fill these vials were accurately measured?
MR. MATHESON: I was using a pipetter that is calibrated to those amounts.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are the dispo pipetters or disposable pipetters calibrated?
MR. MATHESON: The glass one that I was describing earlier?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: No, they are not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Those are the ones that you use when you are actually doing your testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Umm, now can you hold up those two vials next to each other so the jurors can get a sense of the difference between the two.
MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, as to the vial that is 221-B for identification--the--I'm sorry, A, the larger of the two vials, can you--let me ask you another question first. On June the 29th did you have an assumption as to where the five milliliter point would be on this type of purple-topped vial?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was your assumption?
MR. MATHESON: That if this is a ten milliliter tube, the five milliliter point would be at about the halfway point on the tube.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you write in the--maybe you can just make a mark in the area that you would have assumed to be the five milliliter point.
MR. MATHESON: Well, just--
MR. GOLDBERG: And--
MR. MATHESON: Just doing an approximation, going from the top of the tube to about the halfway point, I would see it as right about where I have drawn that line, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: I see you have just drawn a line across the tube.
THE COURT: Is that on the glass or on the label?
MR. MATHESON: I drew it on the label.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Mr. Matheson, based upon that assumption, if you were to assume it was correct, how much would you estimate is in that vial?
MR. MATHESON: Looking at it right now, based on that, I would say about two and a half milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in fact it has how much?
MR. MATHESON: 3.8.
MR. GOLDBERG: So your assumption, based upon the halfway point, is 1.3 milliliters off?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you have never done any experiments like this before?
MR. MATHESON: It has just never been an issue. I have never needed to worry exactly how much blood is in a tube.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you need to worry about that?
THE COURT: Haven't we covered this line already?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Perhaps we could pass the tubes around then so the jurors could get a better look at them.
(Brief pause.)
(the exhibits were passed amongst the jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you retrieve that, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: So sir, based upon the assumption in 221-A as to the midway point, would you say that you could be off by at least 1.3 milliliters in estimating these tubes?
THE COURT: I thought we asked that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I think I asked it a little bit differently and it might have been ambiguous.
THE COURT: You asked him already.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Mr. Matheson as a result of this little experiment that you did, have you come to any conclusions regarding the accuracy of trying to guesstimate what is in one of these non-graduated purple-topped tubes?
MR. BLASIER: Object to the word "Guesstimate."
THE COURT: Strained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, when you looked at one of these purple-topped tubes on the 29th, would you describe what you were doing as being an estimate or a guesstimate?
MR. MATHESON: Well, definitely a very rough estimate.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you come to any conclusions with respect to how accurate your estimate was?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: That it was not very accurate at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I would like to mark--we have already marked as People's 210 for identification an exhibit. Perhaps we could put that up.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to come back to these serology results so I don't know whether it is possible to put it over there.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: While he is getting that chart, Mr. Matheson, I wanted to ask you about some testimony, though, from the preliminary hearing on page 39, line 25, through page 40, line 3.
THE COURT: Two seconds.
MR. GOLDBERG: Page 39 through 40.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have that?
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MR. GOLDBERG: Page 39, line 25, through 40, line 3.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, do you recall giving the following answers to the following questions at the preliminary hearing? I'm sorry, I'm going to have to back up to line 22 for the question. "Question: With respect to the sample of item no. 17, the blood vial of O.J. Simpson, did you similarly inventory how much of that sample you consumed? "Answer: The proportion that would be consumed would have been oh, a stain of, well, consisting of significantly less than one drop out of the vial which when I received it had about two milliliters of blood in it, so it would have been an insignificant quantity to the amount that was present. "Question: Thank you." Do you recall giving that answer to that question, sir?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you mean by the portion that you consumed would have been significantly less than one drop out of the vial and describing it as an insignificant quantity?
MR. MATHESON: At that point I would have been referring strictly to the electrophoretic work. The gels, that type of thing, uses a very small amount of blood, and either forgetting about it or not including the ABO typing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you referring to any materials that were clinging to the side of the pipettes or the microcentrifuge tubes or were you even thinking about that at the time?
MR. MATHESON: Didn't even dawn on me. I was just talking about the actual amount of sample that was used during testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did the figure of the two milliliters, the about two milliliters come from?
MR. MATHESON: That is consistent with the estimate that I made on that inventory.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to direct your attention to People's 210 for identification. What is represented on this board?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's start with the outside packaging. What does that represent?
MR. MATHESON: That is a white analyzed evidence envelope that is used to store evidence items for freezer storage and these are marked to contain items 334 through 336.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what is the package marked item 47, 50 and 78? What are those?
MR. MATHESON: What is shown in those pictures are a coin envelope or a manila coin envelope that is used to hold an evidence item along with the bindle, a little white paper bindle that the actual swatch or evidence item is placed inside of.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are all these items that are--are item numbers bearing the DR number in our case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the item numbers 47, 50 and 78, did you cause those to be released to someone from the Scientific Investigations Division?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they were released in conjunction with a Court order. I happened to be present when they were released.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when was that?
MR. MATHESON: I would have to refer to some notes. Just a moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Wasn't that in October?
THE COURT: Stipulate to the date?
MR. BLASIER: Do you know the date?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It was October 26.
THE COURT: Sounds right?
MR. BLASIER: Sounds right.
THE COURT: All right. October 26. Let's move along.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That was the date of the Court order.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you would have released them after the Court order in October?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I didn't release them. They were released by our evidence control unit but I was present when they were signed out.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who were they signed out to?
MR. MATHESON: Mr. Ragle.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the same Mr. Ragle that you referred to earlier as a Defense expert?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And at some point did those come back into the possession of the Scientific Investigations Division?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us the date on that?
MR. MATHESON: That was on March 10th, 1995.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting back to the testing that you did on the remaining of the items that we haven't discussed, on this ESD enzyme, the three individuals here have type 1; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you use that for the purposes of testing item 49, since everyone has the same ESD type?
MR. MATHESON: One of the electrophoretic systems that was used for that item is something that goes by the name of group 1. It is a group of three different enzymes; the ESD, PGM and GLO enzymes. They were all done in conjunction, all three of them potentially were available to provide information.
MR. GOLDBERG: And we've already asked you about the results on 13-A in terms of the PGM subtype and the EAP result on that was a BA?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are both of those types consistent with Nicole Brown?
MR. MATHESON: She has the same types, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What date did you do this test on 13-A?
MR. MATHESON: Referring back to my notes. The testing on item 13-A, the sock, was on September 20, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in order to calculate the frequency on that item, what did you do?
MR. MATHESON: I would determine what the frequency of occurrence of 1 plus is in the general population and what the frequency of occurrence or percentage of a BA in the general population and multiply those two numbers together.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that how you arrived at the 16 percent?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately 16 percent, correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you do any further testing on this in terms of genetic markers after then?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the conventional work at this point was being done strictly to screen certain stains to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to send them out for further DNA analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you are saying "At this point," are you talking about September of last year?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to item no. 37, the glove, it has a through D. What does a through d signify?
MR. MATHESON: On items, not swatches, but items that have some size, for example, a glove where there may be different bloody areas on it, we analyze the different areas that were present, and in this case I chose four different areas on the glove and designated them as a through d.
MR. GOLDBERG: What technique did you use? Did you use the cloth swatch technique or some other?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in this case I am running directly from the glove under the electrophoresis gel, so I would have taken a thread, I described earlier we showed how you take a thread and put it into the gel. I would have taken a thread and removed the sample directly from the glove.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us which glove a through d, 37-A through d--are they all on the same glove or are they on different gloves?
MR. MATHESON: Referring again to my notes. Okay. I chose two samples from the left glove and two samples from the right glove.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. MATHESON: Excuse me. I took two samples from the front and two samples from the back.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Of one glove?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what were the results on the tests that you performed on item 37, the glove?
MR. MATHESON: That I determined the PGM subtype on all four areas tested to be a 2 plus 1 plus and the EAP to be inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is a 2 plus--who is a 2 plus 1 plus consistent with?
MR. MATHESON: Of the three people that are mentioned here, it is consistent with Mr. Goldman or anybody else who is a 2 plus 1 plus.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you also calculate a frequency for that item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: How did you do that?
MR. MATHESON: I determined off of our experience within our laboratory with the PGM subtypes about 20 percent of the general population has that type.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now, directing your attention to item 44, let's just see where that came from if it is on the board. We can move that over a little bit.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do some testing on item 44?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you see the photograph signifying 44 in the upper right-hand corner, one photograph to the left of 45?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough. You can put that back. I just wanted to--sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what were the results on item 44, your testing on that item?
MR. MATHESON: I found the PGM subtype to be a 2 plus 1 plus and the EAP gave no activity.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you calculate a frequency?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you calculate?
MR. MATHESON: That a 2 plus 1 plus exists in about 20 percent of the population.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now let's skip over top item, 78-B. Did you do some testing on that item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, i.
MR. GOLDBERG: And at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 222, a laboratory note that is L-381.
THE COURT: Marked 222.
(Peo's 222 for id = lab note)
(discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Next I'm going to show you this laboratory note and have you describe for us whether you recognize that document and what it is.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do. That is a copy of a serology item description notes. That describes where items were taken off of item number 78, the boots.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what items did you take off of the boots?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I tested six different areas on the boots themselves. They were labeled 78-A through 78-E.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does this chart show the relative locations of a through e?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take swatches off of both boots?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So a came off which boot?
MR. MATHESON: 78-A is from the sole heel area of the right boot.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did 78-B come from?
MR. MATHESON: 78-B is from the outer edge of the sole of the right boot.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the same--same right boot?
MR. MATHESON: Yeah--
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean as the other one, same item number?
MR. MATHESON: 78-A, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to show you some photographs that we have previously marked. Your Honor, I don't know whether--yeah. I think they are People's 98.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does this appear to be consistent with or does this appear to be the boot that you took some of the items off, the left one, or the right one, rather?
MR. MATHESON: I was going to say that looks like the right boot, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us using this photograph and your diagram where you took 78-A off of?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. 78-A would have been collected from the lower heel area down in here, pointing to the lower left-hand bottom of the--
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can mark that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the arrow in the right position?
THE COURT: Mr. Matheson, why don't you look at your monitor.
MR. MATHESON: It could probably stand to go up a little bit and then toward the right a little bit. Right in that general area right there, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we mark that? Can we write a 78-A on that, too?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, 7--yeah.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that was 78-A?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we print that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you see where 78-B came from on this?
MR. MATHESON: Not directly, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us the general vicinity of it, using this photograph?
MR. MATHESON: It would be--can you take the arrow up a little bit, down a little bit and then to the right. No. Go back to the edge. This sample is actually on the edge of the sole. You couldn't see it directly from the bottom. And in that general area, (Indicating), as it is being pointed to right now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can mark that and label that 78-A.
THE COURT: 78-A?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, B. That's b.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can mark the printout as 223 for identification.
THE COURT: All right. People's 223, printout of this photo.
(Peo's 223 for id = photograph)
(discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, continuing with the testing on 78-A--excuse me--78-B, the shoe, did you have any results on that testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, on 78-B.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the result?
MR. MATHESON: That in the PGM subtype system I found a 2 plus 1 plus and in EAP there was no activity.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does "No activity" mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it means that in that lane on the gel there was nothing visible, no reaction.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you also calculated a result on that?
MR. MATHESON: A frequency, correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which was?
MR. MATHESON: The same as the other, 2 plus 1 plus; it occurs in about 20 percent of the population.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I would like to direct your attention finally to stain 49.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on this particular stain you didn't test this in September but in June?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was on--when in June?
MR. MATHESON: The testing was done on June 27 and 28, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would just like you to look quickly at the Bundy drive board to see where stain 49 came from. In the left-hand corner, card no. 114. Did you test the stain 49 that bears the DR number in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at that time did it have--it had--did it have the item number on it and the photo number, 114, or don't you know?
MR. MATHESON: Referring to my notes, I believe it did. As referenced by my notes that the item no. 1--correction item no. 49, did have photo i.d. No. 114 on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to this particular stain, did you do ABO typing on that stain?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what result did you get off the ABO typing on stain 49?
MR. MATHESON: That the results were indicative of a type a.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "Indicative" mean?
MR. MATHESON: When you are doing ABO typing, there is two different factors that can indicate what type or what your result is; one of them is antigen and one is the antibody. Normally we like to run both tests so that one can confirm another. If you only run one or if you only get conclusive results in one, we call it indicative of. In this particular case I chose to limit the amount of sample I used, only analyzed for what is called the ABO antigen, and thus got an indication of a type a.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why do you want to limit the amount of sample that you used on item 49?
MR. MATHESON: Well, again, because there are additional tests that could be performed in particular DNA testing which potentially could provide a much greater discrimination than ABO testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are there any individuals of the three people that we have reference samples for that are consistent with the type a?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who is that?
MR. MATHESON: Both Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anyone that can be eliminated as a donor of the stain based upon your testing of the ABO type?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who is that?
MR. MATHESON: Mr. Goldman.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, his type is what?
MR. MATHESON: The results I got is it is indicative of a type o.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it indicative of o? For the same reason that you described indicative of a?
MR. MATHESON: Similar reasons. One of the two tests provided a conclusive result; another gave an inconclusive result.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the ESD marker, what was the result on that on item 49?
MR. MATHESON: Got an indication of a result of a type 1 in the ESD system.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is consistent with everyone?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: At least our three individuals here?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. In relation to the population we are talking about here, the three people.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you also do a PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon the PGM subtype were you able to exclude anyone from our population of three individuals based on those results?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who?
MR. MATHESON: Based solely on the PGM subtype I was able to eliminate Mr. Goldman as contributing that blood or Ms. Brown as contributing that blood.
MR. GOLDBERG: And finally, on the EAP system, did you receive a result? Did you get a result on EAP for item no. 49?
MR. MATHESON: I did not test it for that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't EAP tested on this item?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we did not run a system at that time that included the EAP and we chose to do the PGM subtype solely by itself.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you had wanted to test EAP on this drop 49, would you have had to use more sample and made a separate run?
MR. MATHESON: At this point, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why not do that?
MR. MATHESON: The same thing, we don't want to consume any more sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the other EAP tests, did you testify that you didn't actually have to use additional sample in order to get those results?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, based upon the testing that you did on item no. 49, could that drop have been donated by Nicole Brown?
MR. MATHESON: No, it could not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or by Ronald Goldman?
MR. MATHESON: No, it could not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could it have been donated by Orenthal Simpson?
MR. MATHESON: It could have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did do you a calculation of frequency on this blood drop?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you break it down for us starting with the ABO what the frequency is of that item?
MR. MATHESON: I would have--on each individual marker?
MR. GOLDBERG: Can do you that?
MR. MATHESON: I can. I would have to refer to another chart that I made.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: I have a chart that breaks down the population frequencies as determined within our laboratory on samples that we have run on just the markers that we are interested in on the items in this case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the ABO type, what frequency simple did you apply to the ABO type on 49?
MR. MATHESON: Type a in the ABO system exists in about approximately 33.7 percent of the general population.
MR. GOLDBERG: So it is just a little over a third?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the ESD, the esterase d result, did you use any figure assigned to that number for the purposes of arriving at your final conclusion?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the percentage there?
MR. MATHESON: That the ESD one exists in about 79.6 percent of the population.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about PGM subtype? Did you come up with a figure for the PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: That the PGM subtype of a 2 plus 2 minus exists in approximately 1.6 percent of the population.
MR. GOLDBERG: So based upon PGM subtype alone, only 1.6 percent of the population have these same PGM subtypes as the Defendant in this case?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in order to come up with your final conclusion in terms of the frequency, what did you do as to item no. 49?
MR. MATHESON: I took those three percentages that were just mentioned and multiplied them together.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you arrived at what?
MR. MATHESON: Simply multiplying together it comes up approximately ..43 percent of the population which then rounding that off to make it a little bit more understandable works out to about one person out of every 200.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or .5 percent?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And .5 percent is one-half of one percent?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that mean that 99.5 percent of the population can be excluded as having donated that sample 49 at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or that if you took 200 people and tested them, that you would expect that only one of them might have the same blood type as the person that donated that drop?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Matheson. No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you need a moment?
MR. BLASIER: I think we do, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief moment to recycle and reorganize exhibits and things. We will take about ten or fifteen minutes to allow counsel to do that. I will ask you just to step back into the jury room and we will call you out as soon as we are ready to start up again. Mrs. Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
(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. All parties are again present. Mr. Blasier, are you ready to proceed?
MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(the following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand under oath now to begin cross-examination by Mr. Blasier.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mr. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, good afternoon.
MR. MATHESON: Good afternoon.
MR. BLASIER: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want to start by asking you some questions about your background that you had testified to on direct. You indicated that you had attended several courses in DNA technology and I believe your testimony went to the year 1990. Am I accurate on that?
MR. MATHESON: I would have to confirm the dates on that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: You mean 1990 as a formal course on the most recent end?
MR. BLASIER: That is the last entry that I have concerning DNA training.
MR. MATHESON: As far as course work, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that was a two-week course in 1990 in Denver, Colorado, as well as a course at Cetus corporation?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the PCR workshop was actually the university of new haven sponsored by Cetus.
MR. BLASIER: And it was at that conference that you learned a little bit about RFLP and something about PCR?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Something" and a "Little bit."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Which one are we talking about? The one--the one-week Cetus course was a fairly involved course on PCR and we actually did the typing ourselves and that type of thing. The two-week course that I mentioned in Denver was an overview of our RFLP type techniques along with having a chance to try some of the them.
MR. BLASIER: And then in 1990 you had the other two courses, the Denver course and the Cetus course?
MR. MATHESON: That is what I was just referring to.
MR. BLASIER: All. Right the new haven course was an earlier course?
MR. MATHESON: No. The--there was actually a couple at new haven.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Since 1990 have you attended any training courses in DNA technology?
MR. MATHESON: Not course work, no.
MR. BLASIER: And have you done any reading on DNA technology since 1990?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What sorts of readings?
MR. MATHESON: I've reviewed some technical articles. As far as just reading goes, I looked through, you know, the different journals that are out there, journal of forensic science society, that type of thing; not a lot in-depth.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there are regular seminars every year put on by * Roche molecular puts some on and other organizations put on seminars concerning DNA technology and advances that are being made in that area, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And those courses are available to you if you choose to attend them?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, and if I am given time from the city.
MR. BLASIER: And you have not chosen to attend any of those courses?
MR. MATHESON: When I said yes, you mentioned seminars?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have actually attended a couple since 1990 along that line, seminars. When I was talking about before, no, no course work after 1990, I was talking about a classroom type of setting. As a matter of fact, in 1993 in September I attended a Promega meeting at the International Symposium on Human Identification in Scottsdale, Arizona. And that would be one that was directly related strictly to the area of DNA?
MR. MATHESON: I also attended the CAC seminars and American Academy meetings which tend to go in length in the area of DNA.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever taught any aspect of DNA technology at any of those seminars?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever taught DNA technology at any program at all?
MR. MATHESON: Depends on what you mean by "DNA technology." I give general overview in particular within our department to detectives so that they are aware of our current status and that type of thing, but not in any of the seminars.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that you are a member of the California association of criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you have an attended every seminar of theirs since 1979?
MR. MATHESON: Except for either three or four, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how often are those held?
MR. MATHESON: Twice a year; once in the spring and once in the fall.
MR. BLASIER: And again, are those voluntary programs that you can choose to go to or not choose to go to?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And are those--does your organization allow you to attend those if you want to?
MR. MATHESON: They will give us time to attend. They don't cover expenses normally.
MR. BLASIER: Now, to your knowledge has Dennis Fung attended any of those courses?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also irrelevant to this witness and beyond the scope.
THE COURT: "Any other courses" is vague.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: That is vague, "Any of those courses."
MR. BLASIER: The California association of criminalists seminars that happen twice a year, do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And to your knowledge did Dennis Fung attend any of those seminars this year?
MR. MATHESON: Well, this year moaning 1995 there hasn't been one yet.
MR. BLASIER: `94?
MR. MATHESON: Let's see. I'm not sure. The one in the fall was in Pasadena. I think I might have seen him there, but I'm not sure.
MR. BLASIER: `93?
MR. MATHESON: I don't have any specific recollection of whether he has attended or not.
MR. BLASIER: Is there a record kept somewhere of who attend various seminars?
MR. MATHESON: Normally it is included, if they choose to include it as part of their statement of qualifications or CV. Beyond that our department requires something that is called a travel authority. If it is going to be travel for training purposes or seminars out of the county, it would be recorded in that, but it is not like a listing of individual attendances.
MR. BLASIER: And they are not required to keep a record of how many courses they attend or what types of courses they are?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is recommended that they are and that they keep their statement of qualifications up to date.
MR. BLASIER: So is it your experience that had he attended courses that would be on his CV?
MR. MATHESON: It should be, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether Andrea Mazzola has attended any California association of criminalist seminars?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls--
MR. BLASIER: You don't know or she hasn't?
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not know.
MR. BLASIER: Now, make any effort to monitor some sort of classes or seminars the people that work under you attend?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we make sure that we give people the opportunity to attend if they are interested and we try and encourage people to attend. As far as myself monitoring what courses each individual person goes to, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated I believe that you are a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, just recently.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you are--the activity where you are a member of the board of directors, that is the California association of criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: Where I was a member of the board of directors, yes, that and the American Board of Criminalistics.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with both of those organizations were you involved in accreditation programs?
MR. MATHESON: I was--neither one of those organizations are involved in accreditation. They are both associated to some extent with certification.
MR. BLASIER: Now, describe what certification is.
MR. MATHESON: Certification is a system whereby--in our case a voluntary system whereby a professional has an opportunity to show that they meet minimum qualifications of standards within a certain area, as opposed to accreditation in forensics which tests whole laboratories or laboratory systems.
MR. BLASIER: So certification is for an individual and accreditation is for the lab as a whole?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is it your understanding that within the forensic community the idea of certification is an important one?
MR. MATHESON: It is with many of the members, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there has been a substantial amount of controversy in the forensic community about how forms of certification should take place? Are you aware of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, during the course--particularly during the course of when I was involved in setting up the CAC certification program, there was a lot of discussion amongst our members as to what the criteria should be to be able to apply. Yeah, there was give and take on that. There was some differences of opinion and then when we got involved in the American Board of Criminalistics, which is the national body, that because of the wide nature of the different people involved, also indicated that there was a difference of opinion in a lot of different areas.
MR. BLASIER: And is it accurate to say that certification programs are designed to ensure that the people who work in this field are competent?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I'm not sure it really ensures anything. What it does, it gives an indication that a person meets a minimum level of competence through testing, particularly a written test.
MR. BLASIER: It is a method to weed out people who might not be competent from people who are competent? Is that accurate?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Weed out."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It is a--well, the fact that it is voluntary, I'm not sure it would weed somebody out, because if somebody feels they are not going to meet the standards, they may choose not to apply for it or they may choose not to apply for it just because they don't believe in it or for a variety reasons. I think it is just an opportunity for an individual that wants to show that they meet the minimum standards to take the tests and apply and demonstrate that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there is no governmental body that regulates crime labs, is there?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. BLASIER: There is no governmental body that regulates criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: No, except for one in one area. There is some regulation when it comes to blood alcohol analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you are familiar with blood banks that draw people's blood to do routine blood testing?
MR. MATHESON: Generally, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you are aware that they are heavily regulated by the government?
MR. MATHESON: I know that there are regulations, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there are regulations about proficiency testing of people who work in those labs to make sure they don't make mistakes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, no personal knowledge, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there is no such governmental regulation, quality control, for instance, in crime labs, is there?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. BLASIER: And there is no required qualifications set forth by the government for people to be a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't. That is why the associations entered the area.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the associations entered the area because there was a need for such programs, would you agree with that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there is a need for that type of program to ensure the quality of criminalistics work that is done by criminalists, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we are going back to the word "Ensure." I'm not sure that just by offering a program like this that it will ensure that this will occur; particularly the fact that it is voluntary.
MR. BLASIER: Well, that is the idea, though, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. The idea is for the people that are competent to demonstrate that they are.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how many different informal involuntary--I'm sorry--voluntary certification programs are there?
MR. MATHESON: Well, right now there is actually only one and that would be the one that is sponsored by the American Board of Criminalistics. The program that the California association of criminalistics or the CAC put into place was in essence folded into or melded into the American Board of Criminalistics program. We didn't want competing systems out there.
MR. BLASIER: Now, has Dennis Fung applied for certification?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Has Andrea Mazzola applied for any form of certification?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Are the people that work in your division encouraged to apply for certification?
MR. MATHESON: It is--yes. We make sure that they know that they * it is something that they can do and are welcome to do if they like.
MR. BLASIER: Do you make any effort to track the people that work for you in terms of whether they have applied for certification and been certified?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. This goes beyond the scope of the direct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you talked about the Denver--I'm sorry, the new haven course was taught by, among other people, Henry Lee?
MR. MATHESON: One of courses at new haven, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And Henry Lee, would you agree, is one of the world's foremost forensic scientists?
MR. MATHESON: He is very well-known and qualified, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And he is the director of the Connecticut State Police Crime Lab, correct?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And he works primarily for Prosecutors?
MR. MATHESON: I believe he works for the system. I suppose in general, yes, they do tend to work for the Prosecutors.
MR. BLASIER: And you are aware that he is an expert for the Defense in this case?
MR. MATHESON: That is my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Tell us what ASCLAD is.
MR. MATHESON: Asclad stands for the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.
MR. BLASIER: And this is an organization that also has or does have an accreditation program for crime labs, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they started the--what I believe is the only accreditation program for crime laboratories. That organization now is a separate body from ASCLAD called ASCLAD lab.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, ASCLAD--
MR. MATHESON: Lab for laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And the function--one of the functions of that organization is to go examine the crime lab, make recommendations, see whether they meet minimum standards in order to perform services as a crime lab, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And how long has that program been in effect?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it has been about seven, eight years, not quite sure.
MR. BLASIER: Did you have--participate in any way in setting up that program?
MR. MATHESON: No, not at all.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of the requirements for accreditation?
MR. MATHESON: I have read the handout they have, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that the requirements for accreditation are basically standards, minimum standards that a lab should meet in order to qualify for accreditation?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: And those standards are supposed to be minimum standards that would be used by a crime lab and criminalists that work for a crime lab in doing their work?
MR. MATHESON: It is a goal to attain those, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you are familiar with the particular guidelines that ASCLAD has set forth in order for a lab to be accredited?
MR. MATHESON: I have read them. I haven't--don't have them memorized.
MR. BLASIER: Do you think they are good guidelines?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is vague as to "Good."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: As a rule, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you think that the guidelines that are set out by ASCLAD are desirable for a crime lab to follow?
MR. MATHESON: Within the criteria they have. In other words, delineating which are essential. Let's see. Essential, necessary--I forget what the three terms are, but it allows you to meet certain portions of each of those and only all of the essential ones.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I believe you indicated on your direct testimony that you have not--or LAPD has not applied for accreditation for lack of funding?
MR. MATHESON: That's the major reason, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that the funding required is what?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know the exact number. I've been told that the possibility of the cost for our laboratory of our size could run anywhere from ten to $30,000.
MR. BLASIER: Have you--has your lab ever applied for accreditation?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we can't apply until the city authorizes the expenditure of the money and we have requested that money to be made available to us.
MR. BLASIER: Is it fair to say that you have been one of the movers to try and get accreditation for your lab?
MR. MATHESON: Umm, not to this point, no, because that--the accreditation, it was more on a managerial level, and up until just four months ago I was not at that level; I was at a supervisory level. And though I feel that it is something that we should obtain, it was our managers at the time that were pushing for it.
MR. BLASIER: Are they still pushing for it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. At this point we are.
MR. BLASIER: It is considered to be something that is important to your lab?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your opinion that your current practices, many of which you have described here today, meet the minimum standards of ASCLAD?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a quality manual at SID?
MR. MATHESON: We currently have one that is being developed. We do not have one that is complete.
MR. BLASIER: What is that called?
MR. MATHESON: The manual itself?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is being compiled by our quality control quality assurance manager. I'm sure at some point it will be named like quality control manual or something. I don't believe it has a name at the moment.
MR. BLASIER: Is that the field manual that there has been testimony about?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. BLASIER: Field manual is some different document?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: The field manual is a guideline, general protocol and procedures manual that was being compiled by the trace analysis field unit supervisor as guidelines on how we should operate in the field.
MR. BLASIER: How long has that been under development?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was--it was probably started about three to four years ago, but actual work on the manual stopped when that particular supervisor resigned and moved to another laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is there any other manual that you have in SID that your criminalists are required to follow?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, most of the units have protocol and procedure manuals within the unit.
MR. BLASIER: Is there a protocol and procedure manual for the field unit?
MR. MATHESON: Not at this point. That is the one that we just referenced that is under development.
MR. BLASIER: Do the materials in the field manual, in your opinion, set forth standards that should be followed by the criminalists that work for SID?
MR. MATHESON: At this point it has been a while since I have reviewed the whole thing. I do know that there is some information in there that is outdated that needs to be updated. In general the information is good, but that is one reason why it has not been presented to the lab, because it has not had a chance to be updated and managerially reviewed.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the required training for criminalists at SID. I think you indicated the minimum educational requirements are a bachelor of science in some sort of science?
MR. MATHESON: In a science, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And is there any additional training, other than the mini academy that we have been talking about, that criminalists are required to take in order to work for SID?
MR. MATHESON: Are you talking about once they are on the job or prior to being hired?
MR. BLASIER: Well, let's talk about prior first.
MR. MATHESON: Prior to being hired the only requirement is that they have a bachelor's degree in a science.
MR. BLASIER: And after they are hired is there any required program that they must attend?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is no required or formally required program except for what we have described as the informal SID academy.
MR. BLASIER: And they are not required to attend any courses outside of SID; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is no requirement for the people to attend them. We do--there are courses available and there are certain ones that we do try and get--you know, we get them to fill out applications and submit them to the agency that is offering this training, and if they are accepted, you know, then we give them time and hopefully resources in order to attend.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the mini academy, how often is that held?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the SID academy, as it has been called, is kind of an informal structure of a variety of different topics. The goal is to have one every Thursday afternoon, but due to work load considerations and vacations and things like that, many times it is postponed until the next week or the instructor that is supposed to be doing it is on a day off or something, so we shoot for every Thursday afternoon. It doesn't always work out that way.
MR. BLASIER: So it is an on again-off again type of program?
MR. MATHESON: The program is not on again off again. It doesn't--we do keep track of who attends what within this program, but it is many times that it could be two or three weeks or more before it meets again.
MR. BLASIER: Are criminalists required to attend?
MR. MATHESON: Criminalist 1's are required to attend and any other criminalist that is offered to them, if they want to.
MR. BLASIER: Are they required to keep any kind of manuals, written notes of course work?
MR. GOLDBERG: Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I don't know about as far as required. It depends on the instructor for a particular module and the instructors as a rule are more experienced criminalists within the laboratory. If there are handouts that are provided to the criminalists, then they are encouraged to keep them, keep them within their possession so that they can refer to them at a later date.
MR. BLASIER: Is there some kind of record kept as to who attends various seminars and what the subject matter is?
MR. MATHESON: Are we talking about seminars outside of the division or the academy?
MR. BLASIER: The academy in the lunchroom area there?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding is that they do keep track of who attends them.
MR. BLASIER: Do they keep track of what courses have been given for a particular session?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is there some kind of a compilation of handout material that has been passed out as part of the course work?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.
MR. BLASIER: Are they given any kind of examinations?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe there has been any written examinations. I do know that in some of the instructors they work into a segment where the person is--if it is--to give you an example, a demonstration on casting shoeprints, they will have everybody in the class cast a shoeprint but as far as formal examinations, no.
MR. BLASIER: So there isn't--I assume there are no grades given out in terms of how well people do or don't do?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Is there any kind of disciplinary procedure that you invoke if someone doesn't attend these?
MR. MATHESON: No. I--if somebody does fail to attend, we have a supervisor find out why it is and if there was no particularly good excuse--many times people are doing case work or they are going to Court or something so they miss out on one, but if they just fail to attend, then that is noted and when that subject comes around again they are told to attend that one.
MR. BLASIER: Is there instruction ever provided by outside experts?
MR. MATHESON: We have occasionally brought in somebody, but it has been more in the area of general police topics, and the academy includes not only forensics, but things such as radio procedures and a variety of things like that when you are dealing with a departmental agency like we are, and in those instances we bring somebody in from the department to do that.
MR. BLASIER: How often does that happen?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is not relevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated on direct that you offer a training program to detectives in terms of how to collect evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the department has a number of very formal courses, among which are detective--homicide detective school, sexual assault detective school and detective supervisor school, and they always give SID or the crime lab a portion of that so that we can teach the detectives about what their forensics is about.
MR. BLASIER: And are homicide detectives regularly taught how to collect blood stains?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the ones that attend the courses that I teach are, yes.
MR. BLASIER: They are provided kits to collect blood stains, are they not?
MR. MATHESON: If they request them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So they have access to swatches?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they have access to coin envelopes and plastic envelopes?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they have access to tweezers and other tools for making swatches for blood stains?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if you mean access on all of these items, we have them within our laboratory and if they run low or they lose them or they need a replacement, they call us up and we supply them to them.
MR. BLASIER: This is also that they might have available to them wherever they happen to be working out of?
MR. GOLDBERG: That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, we supply them, like I mentioned. It is basically just a file box with the tools and implements they need to collect these things, and if they were to run out, particularly, say, the cloth swatches or if they lose their tweezers or if they lose their scissors, they call us up and ask us for new ones.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did I understand you to say that ninety percent of homicides it is detectives that process the scene rather than a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: These are very rough numbers. My guess is that we probably respond to somewhere between 1- and 20 percent of them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And whose decision is it whether a criminalist is going to respond or the police are going to handle the scene themselves?
MR. MATHESON: It is the detective that is assigned that case.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what the criteria is for that decision?
MR. MATHESON: I don't think there is any defined criteria for it. It is kind of up to the detective. If they feel that there is evidence there that they want assistance in collecting, then they call the crime lab.
MR. BLASIER: Now, within SID at the time of this case on June 13th your position was what?
MR. MATHESON: I was--my position was as a supervising criminalist and the units that I supervised was serology, our trace unit, the field unit, the forensic photographer and our chemical processing unit.
MR. BLASIER: Were you the supervisor for Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola during the time they processed the crime scene in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Not correctly, no. They both worked in different units. I suppose indirectly in that field services at that point, at least during the daytime, were part of my responsibility, but not directly, no.
MR. BLASIER: Who was their direct supervisor?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the case Dennis Fung, his supervisor is Dorene Music at the Firearms Unit and for Andrea Mazzola her supervisor is Bernie Sanchez in Toxicology.
MR. BLASIER: But when they get called out to a scene, do they still report to the same supervisors or is it one person who is knowledgeable about crime scene investigations that they report to as to that aspect of their job?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as a rule they have some autonomy out there. If they needed some assistance, normally at that point they are advised to call one of the assistant directors or the director of the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And is it pair to say it is pretty much up to them whether they call for additional assistance or not?
MR. MATHESON: As to whether or not they say they need additional assistance, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So there is no one that is directly overseeing this to check with them to see if they need help; it is pretty much just in response to a request by them?
MR. MATHESON: As a rule, yes. Many times the field calls come in in the middle of the night and as a supervisor I may not even know it occurred until the next day after the person has gone, done their work and gotten back to the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Steve Johnson, who is he?
MR. MATHESON: He is another assistant director of the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And he was present at the crime scenes on June 13th, was he not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, he was.
MR. BLASIER: Were you present at those scenes?
MR. MATHESON: No, I was not.
MR. BLASIER: When Steve Johnson was present what was his function?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation. No personal knowledge, beyond the scope.
MR. BLASIER: If you know?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: If you know?
MR. MATHESON: He was responding assistant director along with the captain of our division. Both of them were out there to see how thing were going to do a quick overview of the scene and provide assistance if necessary. If not, to return back to the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that the captain of your division, the person that is over the lab director, is a police captain, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Do the people that work for SID carry badges?
MR. MATHESON: We are issued Scientific Investigation Division badges, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And but the criminalists are considered civilian employees of the police department?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What was Michele Kestler's position as of June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: On June 13th she was one of the assistant directors of the laboratory. At that time we did not have a director. That spot was empty. She and Mr. Johnson shared the responsibility for administration of the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And she is now the director of the lab?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: She is married to a robbery/homicide detective, is she not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, she is.
MR. BLASIER: Does she work fairly closely with detectives in the police department, to your knowledge?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, to some extent we all do. I don't think she does any more than the rest of us, other than the fact she is married to one.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether she socializes with detectives in robbery/homicide?
THE COURT: We are getting beyond the scope of the direct here, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated on direct that you were in charge of managing items in this case. Do you remember that testimony?
MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: What did you mean by that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, one of the roles that I've had is in coordinating an awful lot of the activities, when it comes in, tracking what happens in analysis in relation to this case. Every time that a request for analysis have gone through me, requests to have the evidence submitted outside have gone through me if I have been available. The times where we have set up viewings for the Defense, I have been mainly involved in that, making sure the items were available and that the areas were available and that type of thing. Just general coordination.
MR. BLASIER: And have you had that function since the beginning of the case?
MR. MATHESON: Pretty much, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Has it been your responsibility to track all of the items of evidence that have been collected from the 13th onward?
MR. MATHESON: What do you mean by "Track"?
MR. BLASIER: Keep track of where they are?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. BLASIER: Has it been your job to determine what items of evidence are to be analyzed and what aren't to be analyzed?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I mentioned, most of the requests go through me. As a--a contact point for the detectives or the D.A.'s office, they would call me up to put in their request specifying what type of analysis was requested to be done. I would then prepare a request and forward it on to the appropriate person.
MR. BLASIER: Now, have you been monitoring, since June 13th, the media coverage about this case?
MR. MATHESON: Off and on, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And have you been following the Court proceedings?
MR. MATHESON: Off and on.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "Off and on," what do you mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I would watch some and there got to be a point awhile back where I figured it was probably best not to. It was consuming too much of my time during the day. I tended to be paying more attention to it once people within our laboratory were involved.
MR. BLASIER: At what point did you stop watching television?
MR. MATHESON: Well, during the daytime that would be during the detective's testimony.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you watch the testimony of Dennis Fung?
MR. MATHESON: As much as I did. I still am working, so I would be in and out of my office and I would miss segments of it.
MR. BLASIER: Did you try to watch the testimony of Andrea Mazzola?
MR. MATHESON: Same thing, as much as possible.
MR. BLASIER: And that was with a television in your office?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you discuss their testimonies with them in the evenings after they testified?
MR. MATHESON: Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Let me start with Dennis Fung.
MR. MATHESON: From the time that Mr. Fung started testifying until he was done I only--I left messages on his answering machine twice, didn't talk directly with him, and I met with him one evening and we went out to dinner and that was it.
MR. BLASIER: During Andrea Mazzola's testimony did you have any conversations or meet with her when she wasn't testifying?
MR. MATHESON: I believe there was one meeting that we had; it was myself, Michele Kestler and Collin Yamauchi, and Miss Mazzola in Miss Kestler's office.
MR. BLASIER: When was that?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I don't know the exact date. It was sometime I believe early on in her testimony.
MR. BLASIER: And what was the subject matter of that meeting?
MR. MATHESON: We were just talking generally about style of testimony. How to feel comfortable on the stand. Posing questions to her as far as potential things that she might be asked about.
MR. BLASIER: So you talked about specific issues that might come up as part of her testimony?
MR. MATHESON: We didn't so much talk about it, just suggest areas that she may want to be aware of as far as potential questions that may be applied to her.
MR. BLASIER: What sorts of areas did you suggest to her might come up?
MR. MATHESON: Umm--
MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, not relevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Did Michele Kestler participate in that meeting?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Was there any specific discussion of item 17, Mr. Simpson's blood vial, at that meeting?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I don't remember that item--if that item specifically came up. It might have.
MR. BLASIER: Were you aware that that was a significant issue or had been raised as a significant issue by the Defense by this time?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And was the purpose of that meeting to discuss that issue, among others?
MR. MATHESON: No, it wasn't.
MR. BLASIER: You have no recollection of whether you discussed that or not with her?
MR. MATHESON: Well I don't remember if we discussed that specific item. Like I said, we were talking generally about style and just how to testify, feeling comfortable about testifying.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "How to testify," what do you mean?
MR. MATHESON: Just--
MR. GOLDBERG: This is still beyond the scope and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Mildly. One answer. Go ahead and answer the question, then we are going to quit for the day.
MR. MATHESON: The concept of trying to be comfortable, to make eye contact, that type of thing, to deal with the attorneys and the jury, the whole process of being in a courtroom and testifying.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will see you back here tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. We will stand in recess for five minutes and then I would like to see counsel again. Thank you. All right. Mr. Matheson, tomorrow morning at 8:45.
(Recess.)
(at 4:30 P.M. the jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. As of tomorrow morning at 8:30, I need the police reports regarding the recovery of item--
MR. SCHECK: 118.
MS. CLARK: We have it now.
THE COURT: Let me see them so I can read it tonight and you will produce that item in Court tomorrow morning?
MS. MARTINEZ: Your Honor, I already turned it over to--
MS. CLARK: No, no, the item itself.
MS. MARTINEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: The item itself will be here tomorrow?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Any exhibits that we need to exchange, look at, to pass on? If you recall the Court's order, no new exhibits until I have seen it the night before, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it appears that there are a number of things in the exhibits that I just got this afternoon that are objected to. I don't want to go through it in detail because Mr. Matheson is here and the Court has said that I can't discuss it with him.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheson, do you need--do you need Mr. Matheson any more this afternoon?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think so.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheson, why don't you excuse us.
MR. MATHESON: Thank you.
(Mr. Matheson exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: As to the Court's order that we not show or discuss the materials to the witness, Mr. Matheson, I would also like the Court to perhaps revisit that in light of what the materials are, because many of them do not at all appear to be impeachment, they are not impeachment, they are just things that the Defense wants to ask him about. And some of them it is very difficult to figure out exactly what they mean.
THE COURT: Well, let's take it from the top. What are they?
MR. GOLDBERG: They don't have numbers on them, so I will take them in that--the order which I was handed them. One of them appears to be a block type diagram showing the electrophoresis plates on items 84-A and B. I can't tell exactly what this is supposed to be, whether--this is the full size or this is a board?
MR. BLASIER: No, those are what are called power point slides that are projected over the computer system. There are six of those per page. Actually each one takes up the whole screen. Those are scanned pictures that we have been provided by the Prosecution for the electrophoretograms for the fingernails and show other items.
MR. GOLDBERG: There is also a blocked diagram as well, and I can't really read those electrophoretograms. They may be, as counsel says I'm sure they are pictures of what we already provided, but I can't see that based on what I have been handed.
THE COURT: All right. Do we have those available--does Mr. Harris have those available on his computer?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. HARRIS: I did.
(Brief pause.)
(discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, how long or far away are they?
MR. HARRIS: They are right here. I just disconnected the system.
THE COURT: Okay. How long will it take you to boot it back up.
MR. HARRIS: About ten minutes.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. HARRIS: About ten minutes to get them on.
MR. BLASIER: I have them on my computer. My screen is a little small, but I would be happy to bring it back in chambers and show everybody.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, perhaps we need to do that because I would like to verify that, but in addition, the diagram also contains what appear to be some block diagrams. This would require Mr. Matheson to take a close look at it in order to compare it to the actual electrophoretogram to see whether the blocked diagram is more or less accurate, so I don't see any reason that that would have to be done on the witness stand. And I really can't address this in further detail myself because I don't have the level of expertise that is necessary to figure out exactly what is going on here in the block diagrams.
THE COURT: All right. What else is there besides the diagrams and the photographs of the electrophoretic plates?
MR. GOLDBERG: On that particular one?
THE COURT: Yes. What else?
MR. GOLDBERG: That is a full description of it and the issues that pertain to that item, as I understand it, but understand that I have never asked Mr. Matheson about the block diagram.
THE COURT: Is that all there is?
MR. GOLDBERG: (No audible response.)
THE COURT: Photographs and these diagrams?
MR. GOLDBERG: It looks like there are two photographs at the top and four diagrams underneath it.
THE COURT: All right. You seem to have several sheets. Is that what they are?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, they are a variety of different things.
THE COURT: All right. What else?
MR. BLASIER: Let me help. Those are all part of the same group, the same presentation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm dealing with the EAP ones first and then some of them deal with a different phase of block diagrams. It says, "When BA degrades bands disappear from top down." My understanding that that is not true based upon my own reading of the scientific literature and my discussions with Mr. Matheson. And then there are some charts here that says that a degraded BA only has one B band as opposed to two B bands, and I'm only aware of a footnote in one article that somewhat supports this view. But this is the kind of thing again where in order to be able to intelligently answer this issue Mr. Matheson might want to go back and look at that one footnote and also some of the other articles and also determine whether or not these block diagrams are correct.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor--
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not really qualified to do that.
MR. BLASIER: I will suggest--I will give Mr. Matheson every article that I intend to refer to. I will give that to you now so that he can refer to them for tomorrow.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: What he is suggesting may not be scientifically correct, and I would object to the Defense putting something up on the screen for which there will never be my foundation laid, not through Mr. Matheson or any Defense expert.
THE COURT: Well, counsel is offering to give this to you at this point. What is the identity of the articles, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: These are all articles on EAP systems. Do you want me to identify them on the record?
THE COURT: Just so we know what you are giving.
MR. BLASIER: One is Dr. George Sensabaugh. The title is "The utilization of polymorphic enzymes in forensic science." There is a second article by Dr. Sensabaugh. "Isoenzymes in forensic science." There is an article by Brian Wraxall and Elizabeth Emes, e-m-e-s, "Erythrocite acid phosphatase in blood stains." There is a technical note by D.V. Yeshion, y-e-s-h-I-o-n, titled "Thermal degradation of erythrocyte acid phosphatase isoenzymes in case sample."
THE COURT: I read that.
MR. BLASIER: And finally, I believe, is an article by Jill Luffman and Harry Harris titled "A comparison of some properties of human red cell acid phosphatase in different phenotypes."
THE COURT: All right. All right. Mr. Blasier, what else besides the photographs and the block charts? What else--what other exhibits are you going to be using?
MR. BLASIER: I had one other series of charts, or I'm sorry, series of slides to demonstrate how many swatches you can make from a milliliter of blood and the third one is--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, can I continue going through these, your Honor?
THE COURT: I'm just asking, since Mr. Blasier knows what they are and you don't appear to know precisely what they are because of what you have, I thought it would be more precise for me to ask Mr. Blasier what they are.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. BLASIER: And the third one is some slides that I wish to go through with Mr. Matheson on security at SID. It has a couple of pictures that I think have already been introduced.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: I also may be using some of the boards that were used in the opening statement. I probably will be, but they have seen those certainly.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Your. Honor, did the Court want me to continue with the EAP--well, I mean, basically the overriding objection to all of the EAP type slides is that in order to show these he is going to have to have some foundation for it, and if no one has talked to Mr. Matheson about this to determine whether he is going to support it and there is no Defense witness obviously that is going to testify in the People's case to support it, then these should never come in. And many of them do contain statements that appear to be argumentative, that appear to be inconsistent with my understanding of the scientific literature and also what Mr. Matheson's views are.
THE COURT: So you are objecting to some of the titles?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that is a generic objection that relates to all of the EAP materials. And then I had specific objections on the first one which I described as being the one with the electrophoretogram photographs. I have an objection to the second diagram that says, "When a BA degrades bands disappear from the top down" as not reflecting my understanding of the way it works and as being argumentative. The second diagram is similar to that. It seems to be an illustration of the principle--excuse me--the third diagram appears to be an illustration of the principle in the second diagram.
THE COURT: All right. Let's do this, counsel. I have a meeting at 5:30 I have to attend. I'm going to order all counsel who are involved in this, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Blasier I'm, going to order you both to be here at eight o'clock tomorrow morning with Mr. Harris and let's fire these things up, let's look at them in real size and see what is there. All right. And Mr.--I assume, Mr. Goldberg, you have some experts assisting the Prosecution, other than Mr. Matheson, that you can consult with with regards to these items over the evening hour.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we do, but unfortunately some of that * some of them may not be in town, so if we were to consult with one of our experts who is a serologist, that would be difficult to do between now and 8:00 A.M. the Court said?
THE COURT: 8:00 A.M. all right. Then Mr. Harris, we will fire those up and well take a look at them and we will go through them one at a time.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the Prosecution still under orders not to discuss these or show these with Mr. Matheson?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, in light of the fact--in fact, I want them to go over them with Mr. Matheson.
THE COURT: All right. All right.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: See you tomorrow morning at eight o'clock.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, one brief--
THE COURT: That does not include the Court reporter.
MR. SCHECK: Make your day less fun tomorrow I hope.
THE COURT: Don't forget at four o'clock we have three motions.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. I supplied a shortened letter memorandum in response to the Prosecution's parody response and I have been dealing Mr. Harmon, that--with respect to his motion, all that we have are two declarations, one of which I have finally been able to track down from Dr. Reiters, who had been ill, that I have given to them, and I will file with the Court. It is one page, five paragraphs, and the other one I'm seeking, I know what substance is--Mr. Slafka who I think is the--we believe must be the individual who spoke with Agent Marks at this meeting in Seattle who is named in Mr. Harmon's response. My suggestion to him, and he is free to take it if he wants, is that there are conflicts, factual conflicts, and I don't particularly see the need, until he gets an opportunity to talk with these individuals and get declarations from them, if they want to settle the record to deal with it tomorrow. I know we have another day when Mr. Dean Uelmen is coming down, the 9th. In light of the Court's ruling this morning, with respect to consumption, you know, I have concerns about the issue, but I don't think it is of pressing need, given the way we are going to handle that, so that is just I think a friendly invitation to him to settle the record on paper and to try to keep it tight. He is free to accept it or not.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Well, you know, Judge, I think this is real curious. Remember when they filed this there was a big rush to get this solved. Remember that? I think they filed it on a Thursday and Mr. Neufeld got up and said this is really urgent, we need to get this resolved, so I spent the weekend filing the response. We filed on it that Tuesday morning and then it was set and then other things came up.
THE COURT: So the short answer is you decline the invitation and you are willing to go forward tomorrow?
MR. HARMON: Well, I just find it fascinating that these declarations just suddenly show up on the eve of the hearing and then one of them is lost somewhere in the stratosphere and the hearing has been set for tomorrow afternoon. You know, I want to get this black cloud off of my head that they have planted over there, but this is very typical, as I referred to in my response, to the way they operate, so--
THE COURT: All right. I take that as a no.
MR. SCHECK: I guess he is saying no.
THE COURT: I take that as a no.
MR. SCHECK: We tried.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: I tried.
THE COURT: We will take a brief recess at four o'clock tomorrow and then we will launch into half hour's worth of motions. All right. See you all tomorrow. And Mr. Blasier and Mr. Goldberg, eight o'clock tomorrow.
(At 4:50 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, May 3, 1995, 8:00 A.M.)
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
the People of the State of California,)
plaintiff,)
vs.) no. Ba097211 )
orenthal James Simpson,)
defendant.)
reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, May 2, 1995
Volume 137 pages 25236 through 25501, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
For volume 137 pages 25236 - 25501
day date session page vol.
tuesday May 2, 1995 A.M. 25236 137 P.M. 25358 137
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX of witnesses People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
matheson, Gregory 137 (Resumed)
24241gb (Resumed) 25365gb 25454bb
ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
matheson, Gregory 137 (Resumed) 24241gb (Resumed) 25365gb 25454bb
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
210 - Posterboard 25237 137 entitled "Defense testing" with 8 photographs depicting the outside package and items 47, 50 and 78
211-A - Photograph of 25242 137 item no. 60
211-B - Photograph of 25242 137 item no. 59
211-C - Photograph of 25242 137 item no. 17
212 - 1-Page document 25246 137 entitled "Serology item description notes"
213 - 1-Page document 25264 137 entitled "Rockingham inside and adjacent"
214-A - Photograph of 25268 137 a sock with a ruler and various writing
214-B - Photograph of 25268 137 a sock with a ruler and various writing
215 - Posterboard 25304 137
216 - 2-Page document 25332 137 entitled "Analyzed evidence report" L-77 and L-78, dated June 28, 1994
217 - Posterboard 25353 137 entitled "Block diagram showing EAP phenotypes"
218 - 1-Page document 25378 137 page 3 of analyzed evidence report dated October 18, 1994
219 - 1-Page document 25383 137 entitled "Electrophoresis worksheet"
220 - Posterboard 25396 137 entitled "Nail clippings, scrapings - Nicole Brown"
221-A - Glass vial 25422 137 with substance
221-B - Glass vial 25422 137 with substance
222 - 1-Page document 25440 137 entitled "Serology description notes"
223 - Photograph of 25443 137 the bottom right shoe of victim Ronald Goldman with red markings and the initials "G.M."