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