Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. I had one other exhibit that I got last night that is a couple of excerpts from the California Association of Criminalists Code of Ethics that I may use this morning and I provided the Court with actually my only copy, so I told Mr. Goldberg about it, but he did not see the copy. Also, we did not deal with knife 118 yesterday, I think we forgot, but we need to deal with that this morning.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. BLASIER: 118, the knife that was ordered produced.
THE COURT: Okay. Do we have those reports?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think Miss Clark either had them or gave them to the Court.
THE COURT: No reports.
MR. BLASIER: I have them all here, your Honor. I thought she had given them to you as well.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is it permissible for us to handle this issue when Miss Clark was here, since she was addressing the Court on it previously?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: When will Miss Clark be available?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DARDEN: Soon, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: We believe that she will be available soon.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to be getting into this relatively quickly. Miss Clark said she was going to provide you with the reports. Mr. Blasier knows what is in the reports. It is not terribly complicated.
THE COURT: Do we have the item here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, we do. Your Honor, as the Court recalls, the People did ask permission to reopen, which the Court said you would consider in the event the Court were going to allow us to get into this issue, so I just wanted to remind the Court of that. Because if that were the case, then perhaps counsel would--
THE COURT: Is 118, item 118 here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: All right. Unfortunately, Mr. Blasier, the reports that were just submitted to me appear to be twelve, fifteen pages.
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: All right. I haven't had the opportunity to read them at this point, so until I have that opportunity and hear from counsel, we won't get to that.
MR. BLASIER: Well, then I would ask that we wait. That is part of my cross-examination and I'm going to get to it probably within an hour or so.
THE COURT: Well, then why don't we proceed for an hour and then when we get there maybe we will be at an appropriate time to break and I will be able to read the reports. All right. Any other comment?
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we have that copy back or have extra copies made so that Mr. Goldberg can review it?
THE COURT: Oh, sure. I thought you had provided copies to Mr. Goldberg.
MR. BLASIER: That was my only one.
THE COURT: Maybe I can get one of the law clerks to make me a copy of these items.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheson, would you please 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 undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. Good morning, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, good morning.
MR. MATHESON: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I would like to ask you some questions about Mr. Simpson's reference blood sample. That is item no. 17, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: That had originally been logged in as item no. 18 and--
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase.
MR. BLASIER: It had originally been recorded by Mr. Fung and Ms. Mazzola as item no. 18 and at some point it was changed, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. At some point it was believed to be 18 and then it was corrected.
MR. BLASIER: Would you believe that the suspect's reference sample in a criminal case is an extremely important piece of evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And could you use the analogy that with a wheel? All items of evidence are compared to that, correct?
MR. MATHESON: To that and other reference samples, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that reference sample in effect is the hub of the wheel from which everything else is looked at, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Along with other references, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And if the integrity of that reference sample is compromised in some fashion, then that would affect the validity of the analysis of other things that are compared to it, would you agree with that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes. If there is some problem that compromises the validity of it, then there is a concern, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that with respect to blood samples, many tests can be run on extremely small amounts of blood samples?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that by virtue of that, that very small amounts of blood could be used hypothetically to contaminate large numbers of items of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure what you mean by "very small" and "large quantity." You could--well, if the samples come in direct contact with each other, sure, there could be transferring contamination.
MR. BLASIER: And we talked about yesterday that as small as one or two nanograms, one or two billionths of a gram of blood can be tested and you can get results using DNA testing, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Very small quantities, yes, can be detected and tested.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you also agree that blood in a sense is anonymous in that by just looking at it you can't tell where it came from, can you?
MR. MATHESON: No, you cannot.
MR. BLASIER: And by the same token, a swatch that has what appears to be blood on it, just by looking at that you can't tell anything about where that came from, can you?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when blood is drawn from a suspect it is done in a hospital setting, is it not, generally, or a medical setting?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: In a medical setting, yes.
MR. BLASIER: The detectives don't do that in their office, do they?
MR. MATHESON: No, not normally.
MR. BLASIER: It is done by a trained person who knows how to draw blood, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It is my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, have you drawn blood before yourself? Do you know how to do that?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Have you seen it done?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the techniques that are used to draw blood?
MR. MATHESON: Only on those that have been used on me.
MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the technique where a syringe is used to take blood out of a vein and then the syringe is injected into a vacutainer?
MR. MATHESON: I have heard about it. I have never seen it done.
MR. BLASIER: And the vacutainer or the tubes that we have been talking about, you were shown a couple of them yesterday or the other day. Do you recall those?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And they are manufactured with a vacuum inside. That is why they are called vacutubes, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So that when a needle is stuck into a vacutainer, it tends to suck in whatever might be in the syringe, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as--well, there is a vacuum. It is going to try and draw in whatever is stuck into it, if there is a needle with an opening in it.
MR. BLASIER: And do you know how much blood would be drawn in, given the amount of vacuum in a vacutainer, how much blood would you drawn in just on its own coming in from a syringe? In other words, nobody is pushing on the end of the syringe. Do you have any idea?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any idea how much blood would be drawn into a vacutainer given the amount of vacuum that is in those containers, if you just stuck a syringe with blood in it in the top without pushing the plunger down?
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical and no foundation.
THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever done any experiments on trying to determine how much blood goes into an vacutube because of the vacuum in that tube?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have an exhibit I would like to mark.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
THE CLERK: 1135.
THE COURT: 1135. And Mr. Blasier, what is this?
MR. BLASIER: This is a vacutainer that contains some cranberry juice.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1135 for id = vacutainer)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you this exhibit which is 1135?
THE COURT: 1135.
MR. BLASIER: I showed you that I believe yesterday, did I not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, you did.
MR. BLASIER: And we--I gave you a measuring device so that you could verify how much cranberry juice was in that vial, did I not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And we verified that there are approximately eight milliliters in that vial, correct?
MR. MATHESON: When I poured it off and measured it, I measured 7 and a half.
MR. BLASIER: And we noticed that there was some still in the bottom of the tube, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So there was 7 and a half plus what was in the bottom of the tube in that vacutainer, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you described that, I believe the other day, as a 10-milliliter tube, didn't you?
MR. MATHESON: That was an assumption I had, yes.
MR. BLASIER: It actually holds, if the cap is off, a lot more than 10 milliliters, doesn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It holds approximately 14?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know. I would want to measure it.
MR. BLASIER: And when you were estimating on the stand two days ago, I believe, how much blood would be half of the vial, you measured from the top of the cap to the bottom of the vial, did you not? I think you put your finger on the top or your thumb on the bottom or maybe the other way around?
MR. MATHESON: Actually, not to the top of the cap, but to the top of the glass part of the tube.
MR. BLASIER: Now, eight milliliters of blood in that tube would essentially look very much like that, would it not?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the fact that I measured it yesterday, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is blood heavier or lighter than water?
MR. MATHESON: Blood is slightly heavier.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know about how much?
MR. MATHESON: Not very much at all.
MR. BLASIER: Not very much?
MR. MATHESON: There is a slight difference, though.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know how much that vial weighs?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: It weighs very little, doesn't it?
THE COURT: That is vague.
MR. BLASIER: Can you estimate the weight of that vial?
MR. MATHESON: Not just by feeling it, no.
MR. BLASIER: Is it important that blood samples, such as a suspect's reference sample, be transported carefully?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "carefully."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, you would want to transport anything carefully, particularly if you are dealing with a biological sample, so you don't spill it.
MR. BLASIER: You don't want to break it either, do you?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. BLASIER: And is it appropriate for one criminalist to put a sample of blood in a trash bag and give it to another criminalist to transport without telling that criminalist what it is?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, calls for an opinion and conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I don't think it is inappropriate, no.
MR. BLASIER: You would recommend that that is okay to put that in a trash bag, give it to somebody, don't tell them that it is in there to let them carry it around?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I would be concerned if just the vial was dropped into a trash bag or something and then handed to it, but the fact that it is in other packaging and there is a little bit of padding there, I don't think it is wrong in doing that.
MR. BLASIER: How about taking that trash bag and leaving it on a counter, on a table overnight without telling anybody that it is in there?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you--
MR. BLASIER: Would you recommend doing that?
MR. MATHESON: It is not a great procedure, no.
MR. BLASIER: And you have janitors at SID, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to go through the records that are maintained at the lab with respect to all records that you have of withdrawals from Mr. Simpson's reference tube. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: I want you to assume, for purposes of a hypothetical, that you started with eight milliliters of blood, approximately. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your records indicate, do they not, that on September 14th criminalist Collin Yamauchi withdrew approximately one milliliter of Mr. Simpson's reference blood?
MR. MATHESON: I remember that reference, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you need to look at the record to make sure of that?
MR. MATHESON: It would be good, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a serology item description note.
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: And that is consistent with what you said, is it not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is, approximately one milliliter.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on June 20th blood was withdrawn for purposes of doing toxicological analysis, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know the exact date. I would like to see a record of that.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a toxicology document.
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: And that indicates that as of that date there was 5.5 milliliters, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, no foundation for business records; hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You recognize that document as a regular form that is used in your toxicology unit?
MR. MATHESON: It looks familiar, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Those are filled out in the regular course of business of people that work in the toxicology unit?
MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know who filled that out?
MR. MATHESON: Well, looking at the initials, that is not one of my units and I have not worked with this person, but the initials are consistent with a Lisa Flaherty.
MR. BLASIER: Those are filled out during the normal course of conducting an analysis, correct?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: They were filled out--I'm sorry, were you done?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Those are filled out at the time that the testing is done, correct?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: That indicates that as of the 20th there were 5.5 milliliters in that reference sample, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is what the form indicates.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on--some point around June 27th Mr. Yamauchi withdrew some sample from the reference tube for purposes of doing electrophoretic analysis, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I would like to see the record. I believe he did a notation of having removed some portion of the blood on the 25th.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MATHESON: Of June.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a record--what is a thread, by the way?
MR. MATHESON: A thread is a small portion of cloth.
MR. BLASIER: Just like it sounds?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And when you use the term "a thread" in the context of electrophoretic analysis, what does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, thread is used--you put the sample on it, whether it is extracted from another item or a whole blood sample, let it absorb onto this thread that is approximately of a centimeter, a little over a quarter inch long, and that was placed into the gel that was shown a few days ago.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you take a look at that document I gave you and see if that refreshes your memory about some of that reference sample being removed on the 27th.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that he had a memory of it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, this does indicate that on June 27th some threads were prepared for electrophoresis.
MR. BLASIER: That is your note?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that is in my writing.
MR. BLASIER: Of your observation of that thread being removed?
MR. MATHESON: Well, threads, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, approximately how much blood is necessary to make a thread?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I have never measured it, but the quantity of blood to actually make the threads is quite small. As a matter of fact, it may even be less than the amount of blood that is left in the pipetter that we use to withdraw the blood.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, on the 25th the records indicate that there was another withdrawal from the reference sample, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And let me--would having a record of that help you--help refresh your memory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it would.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It still states facts--assumes facts not in evidence, that he had a memory.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a recollection of blood being withdrawn approximately the 25th for certain types of analysis?
MR. MATHESON: I was not present at that time, but I was made aware of it.
MR. BLASIER: And you have reviewed the records about that, have you not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: And would it--you remember what is in the record, don't you, or do you?
MR. MATHESON: Not everything, no.
MR. BLASIER: Would it help refresh your memory to see the records?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it would.
MR. BLASIER: May I show him, your Honor?
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, does that document appear to be a form document that is used in your laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And are those filled out at the time that the actions described in the document are taken?
MR. MATHESON: At or about that time, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And does that appear to be filled out in the appropriate manner?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: And do you recognize the handwriting?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Whose handwriting is it?
MR. MATHESON: The majority of it on the page is Mr. Yamauchi's.
MR. BLASIER: What does that document indicate with respect to the removal of blood from Mr. Simpson's reference sample at that time?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It indicates that on June 25th there was approximately three quarters of a milliliter removed.
MR. BLASIER: And that was for what purpose?
MR. MATHESON: For I believe ABO typing and some initial electrophoresis work.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is there any indication on that record about an additional amount being withdrawn for toxicology?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it doesn't reference it being removed for toxicology.
MR. BLASIER: What does that reference?
MR. MATHESON: That refers to the quantity of blood that is present in a microcentrifuge tube that was with the blood vial.
MR. BLASIER: Now, a microcentrifuge tube, that is a little tiny tube that has almost a pointed bottom, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It is a plastic tube, correct, that has kind of a conical-shaped bottom with a snap cap on the top or screw cap.
MR. BLASIER: That holds about one and a half milliliters?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That record indicates that as of the date that Mr. Yamauchi withdrew three quarters of a milliliter for serological purposes that there was a microcentrifuge tube there with the reference vial, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That was packaged with it, yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you have--you are familiar with that little microcentrifuge tube, are you not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: You have seen it and you have measured it, haven't you?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And how much blood is in that microcentrifuge tube now?
MR. MATHESON: At this moment?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: How much was in it when you measured it?
MR. MATHESON: I would have to reference one of my notes.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: Trying to locate the date in which one of those determinations was made.
THE COURT: Can you use a straight edge?
MR. MATHESON: No, thank you.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I have a reference from September 21st that gives a total measurement for the blood vial and the microcentrifuge tube. I did not delineate how much was in each.
MR. BLASIER: That indicates what?
MR. MATHESON: On September 21, 1994, that there was approximately 3.8 milliliters total of blood.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you recall in January of this year that you measured, as precisely as you could, the amount of Mr. Simpson's blood that was left?
MR. MATHESON: I would want to confirm that.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you check your records.
MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.) I have a reference in my chronology that a request was made by Deputy D.A. Goldberg to determine the quantity of the blood present. I did not record on that chronology what that amount was.
MR. BLASIER: What did you determine the total amount to be?
MR. MATHESON: At that point I don't have notes on it. I believe I just telephonically advised him.
THE COURT: Do you know which date that was done?
MR. MATHESON: On January 4th, 1995.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: I have two pictures I would like to have marked.
THE CLERK: 1136 and 1137.
MR. BLASIER: Sorry?
THE COURT: 1136-A and B or do you want to do 1136 and 1137?
MR. BLASIER: Let's do 1136-A and b.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1136-A & B for id = photographs) (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a photograph, 1136-A. Does that appear to be the blood tube, the reference sample of Mr. Simpson with the microcentrifuge tube?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: And let me show you 1136-B. Does that appear to be another picture of the same thing of a slightly different angle?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: Could I display these on the elmo?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Putting up 1136-A first.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, that is the photograph you identified as Mr. Simpson's reference sample, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that little tube at the bottom is the microcentrifuge tube that we were talking about?
MR. MATHESON: It appears to be, yes.
MR. BLASIER: That was a 1.5 milliliter tube. That is the capacity of that little one, isn't it?
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, we need to see the bottom of that.
MR. BLASIER: There we go.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that is the standard quantity for those tubes.
MR. BLASIER: What does the business record indicate was remaining in that microcentrifuge tube as of approximately June 25th?
MR. MATHESON: Well, according to Mr. Yamauchi, he put approximately three quarters ml's or milliliters.
MR. BLASIER: And that indicates that that microcentrifuge tube, that was the blood withdrawn for the toxicological analysis, doesn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to what indicates.
MR. BLASIER: The business record that you have in front of you?
MR. MATHESON: It does not specifically say that is what it was for in this record, no.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that there is a no. 1477 associated with that entry?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. BLASIER: And what does that stand for, do you know?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it is a reference number in toxicology.
MR. BLASIER: So--and that is a number that is assigned to a sample of blood when it is sent for toxicology, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know the inner workings of their unit, but it is a number that appears on the tube.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: And is that the i.d. Number of the technician that does the work generally?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know that, no.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: I have one other photograph. 1137?
THE COURT: 1137.
(Deft's 1137 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you 1137. Does that appear to be another photograph of the vial?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And do you see initials on there on that vial, "W.F."
MR. MATHESON: I see initials. It is not W.F.
MR. BLASIER: What is it?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it is L.M.F.
MR. BLASIER: l.M.F. is who?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that is Lisa Flaherty.
MR. BLASIER: She is the person that does toxicology?
MR. MATHESON: She works in that unit, correct.
MR. BLASIER: There is a number next to her initials?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. BLASIER: What is that number?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if that is her serial number. I don't believe it is.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, I meant tell us what the numbers are.
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object that there is no foundation for the photograph, when it was taken; also discovery.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, on the latter objection could I be heard?
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, do you recall, I believe in January, when I visited the lab, along with a Mr. Taylor and Mr. Scheck?
MR. MATHESON: I know you were there, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1136-B again. Do you remember us taking photographs and measurements of the reference tube?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object on the same grounds, foundation and discovery.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Do you recognize your hand in that picture?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure if that is my hand. I do remember manipulating the vial.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Is there any doubt in your mind that that is Mr. Simpson's reference blood vial?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, I would like you to look at the purple top on that vial.
MR. GOLDBERG: I still object on discovery grounds.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at the side bar, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. SCHECK: He has got a lot of nerve. These are people that won't even stipulate to lunch on the record.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, be quiet.
MR. SCHECK: This photograph was taken--
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, be quiet.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: All right. I'm looking at 1136-B, 1137 and 1136-A. All right. Mr. Goldberg, what is your objection?
MR. GOLDBERG: We were not provided these in discovery. I haven't seen them in--in fact, counsel didn't show them to me this morning, I don't believe. I don't believe he did. He didn't show them to me until he put them up with the witness, so there is a discovery violation.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, why didn't you show these to Mr.--
MR. BLASIER: These were provided months ago when we turned over I think about $1700 worth of photographs. These photographs were part of the ones that we took at the lab that we gave up a whole stack in order numbered.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see the date on this.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: And they took the same pictures that we did.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not sure if this is the same lab visit. We do have some Defense photographs from that lab visit, your Honor, but I don't recall seeing this set of photographs of the blood vial from the lab visit. I do recall seeing other photographs of the physical layout of the lab.
THE COURT: Well, at this point--
MR. GOLDBERG: On--
THE COURT: At this point Mr. Matheson has testified he has no doubt as to what this is and he recollects the visit, so I'm going to overrule the objection at this time. Mr. Goldberg, you can review your photos. If you don't already have this, you can bring it up again. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me again show you--
THE COURT: Hold on. Let the Court reporter sit down.
MR. BLASIER: Let me again show you 1136-A and I want you to look at the top of that vial between the purple-topped cap, the glass. Can you see that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I can.
MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there appears to be blood smeared on the purple-topped cap in that position?
MR. MATHESON: There does appear to be small quantities of blood on the cap, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you withdraw blood from a reference tube such as that, you don't pour it out, do you?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. BLASIER: You take a pipetter and put it in the blood, take the blood up into the pipetter and then take it out, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the proper procedure is to do that presumably without spilling the blood all over the vial, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Of course you try and be as careful as possible.
MR. BLASIER: And that is the standard procedure that is used any time a trained person like yourself removes blood from a vial like that, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the elmo doesn't portray this very well. May I have the jurors view these pictures?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The exhibits were passed amongst the jury.)
THE COURT: If you will just hand them--as soon as you finish looking at them, hand them to the next juror so that we can speed this up just slightly.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, would you collect those items from Deputy Smith, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, I think you testified that from your measurements there was 3.8 milliliters as of what date totally remaining blood?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that was September 21st. Yes, on September 21st, approximately 3.8 milliliters.
MR. BLASIER: And that included the blood in the microcentrifuge tube, didn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on September 30th a sample of that blood was released to the Defense, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I will confirm that in my notes.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a record.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct, approximately one milliliter was released.
MR. BLASIER: And those are your notes made in the regular course of your work, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And when you released that one milliliter to the Defense, you used a graduated pipette, did you not?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I used an automatic pipetter that draws up one milliliter.
MR. BLASIER: So you can determine one milliliter from using a pipette fairly precisely, can't you?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you measured the amount of blood left in January, that was around the time of our visit to the lab, my visit and Mr. Taylor's and Mr. Scheck's, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you provided us with the total measurement of Mr. Simpson's reference sample at that time, did you not?
MR. MATHESON: I believe I did. I seem to remember making a copy of something.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And I want you to assume hypothetically that there was 2.8 milliliters of blood left at that time. Do you have that hypothetical in mind?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to use another exhibit at this time.
THE COURT: Not at this point.
MR. BLASIER: May we approach?
THE COURT: No, we have already had our discussion on this. Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, between the taking of that reference sample on June 13th and the time that you measured it on--in early January, are there any other records, business records of your agency or the Los Angeles Police Department of withdrawals from that reference sample?
MR. MATHESON: There are no records that I can recall in addition to the ones that we have talked about, other than what is implied by the testing that I did, and I did not specifically record that I had withdrawn a certain amount.
MR. BLASIER: So that you are aware of no other withdrawals from the business records of--from that blood, other than the one you just alluded to?
MR. MATHESON: As I'm sitting here right now, I would--to be absolutely positive, I would like to go through all of the pages and notes that were between that time frame.
MR. BLASIER: But you reviewed all the notes in preparation of your testimony, haven't you?
MR. MATHESON: I have reviewed many notes, yes, it is quite voluminous.
MR. BLASIER: And you have known for quite some time that the issue of how much blood was taken out of that tube has been an important issue, haven't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have been aware of the issue.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to use the exhibit.
THE COURT: Foundational problem, as I indicated to you. You can use it when there is one more piece of the exhibit. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, every time something is taken out of that reference tube, initials are put on the tube; isn't that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Whenever somebody uses that tube in some way, as far as testing or removal of a sample, they are supposed to initial it, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you again exhibits 1136-A and B and 1137 and ask you to tell me each and every initial that is on that blood vial.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I see one as mentioned earlier that was L.M.F.
MR. BLASIER: That would be for toxicology, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. There is what appears to be an initial above that that I don't recognize. I'm not even sure I can read it. Above that on the tube are my initials with the date 6/27/94 and then there are--above that appear the initials of Collin Yamauchi of 6/25/94.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me stop you for a second. And would it help you to look at a record of all of those initials in your handwriting?
MR. MATHESON: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I apologize. I think this might be easier. Is that a business record in your handwriting?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And that is a recordation by you of all of the entries or initials on that blood vial, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Under business records exception.
THE COURT: Sustained on the business--are you going to use the record or using this to refresh his recollection? What are you doing?
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you: Did you make that particular document in the regular course of your business?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you did that at the time when you were actually looking at the blood vial and the paperwork to determine what was on the vial?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you wrote it down as you did it?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could I--
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: You want to mark this as 1138?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
(Deft's 1138 for id = document)
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you 1138. And could you tell us from that record what withdrawals are indicated or what are all of the withdrawals that are indicated from that record?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes fact not in evidence, that it indicates withdrawals.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Could list them in chronological order, please?
MR. MATHESON: There is no information here that says when withdrawals were made. There are initials and there are dates. It doesn't specify what work was necessarily done on each of those times.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Let me ask you a question: When someone takes blood out of that for purposes of doing work, they initial it at that time, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is one of the reasons, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they write down the date that they do that, don't they?
MR. MATHESON: Normally. It is not required.
MR. BLASIER: But if they wrote down a date there would be no reason why they would write a date different from the date they put their initials on this, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: They shouldn't, right.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. What are the recordations on that blood vial in terms of people having access to it and taking things out of it?
MR. MATHESON: So I should--because there are references here that are not for when things were taken out.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Well, let's go through all of them and then we will pare them down.
MR. MATHESON: The ones that I see on this record is the j-1477 L.M.F.
MR. BLASIER: What is the date of that?
MR. MATHESON: There is no date associated with that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MATHESON: G.B.M., 6/27/94.
MR. BLASIER: That is you?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. C.Y. for Mr. Yamauchi, 6/25/94. And then a 6/14/94 C.Y. those are the markings that are on the tube itself, according to my record here.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there are also markings on the envelope that the tube is contained in, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And they also indicate when people initial on that envelope, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is some of the information that is here, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And tell us what those entries are.
MR. MATHESON: There is one that is C.Y. 6/14/94, a G.B.M., 9/30/94, followed with a notation "for split." then G.B.M. 1/4/95 followed by the notation "to determine quantity."
MR. BLASIER: Is that in your handwriting--I'm sorry, that is the entry that you made, is it not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is. There is also a--as far as notations that appear on the envelope, also I have referenced here a note by Fung that says "received from Vannatter, 6/13/94."
MR. BLASIER: Now, going back to the tube--your Honor, could I put that on the elmo, please?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson--incidentally, your Honor, for the record, the highlighting is mine. I put that there. Mr. Matheson, the first entry for the vial is the--in terms of data is C.Y. on 6/14. That is Collin Yamauchi, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct, along with the no. 18.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that that corresponds to the record that you've already identified as Collin Yamauchi's withdrawal on the 14th of approximately one milliliter for DNA testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I believe that one milliliter was for swatching, yes.
MR. BLASIER: For swatching, okay. And would you agree that the entry of C.Y., Collin Yamauchi, for 6/25 of 1994 corresponds to the record that you identified where he indicates three quarters of a milliliter taken for himself and the presence of the microcentrifuge tube with three quarters of a milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conclusion, opinion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That entry is no longer visible on this screen, but yes, it corresponds to that time.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the entry in your initials on the 27th, would you agree that that corresponds to the withdrawal that you made that you indicated you made no records of?
MR. MATHESON: That I didn't record the quantity that was removed, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And did you make any recordation at all about work that you did on the blood that you removed on that date?
MR. MATHESON: There was an analytical notes, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have those notes here?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Could I take a look at them?
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: It is associated with a report that was written, completed on 6/28/94. There are--there is one blood analysis summary sheet, a blank or a not form page where I recorded some data, along with a serology item description notes and then some electrophoresis pages that actually cover a couple of different days.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that that blood analysis work sheet was filled out by Collin Yamauchi, not yourself?
MR. MATHESON: Actually we both have entries on here.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you both did that same work at the same time?
MR. MATHESON: Well, he started some of the work two days before on the 25th, and then I was involved and completed some of the work on the 27th and the 28th.
MR. BLASIER: Then the three quarters of a milliliter he indicated on those records that you are referring to is what was taken out for the work that you and he did during that period of time, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence. It was--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Is it correct that the three-quarters of a milliliter entry that you have already testified to about around that time, that is the work that you and he did that you just testified to?
MR. GOLDBERG: It still misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Is there an entry in the record indicating the withdrawal of blood from that vial for the work that you just testified to?
MR. MATHESON: There is an entry of the work that he did, but there is no quantity mentioned for the work that I did.
MR. BLASIER: So are you telling us that you took blood out of that vial to do work and made no entry anywhere of the withdrawal of that blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: The fact that blood was removed is implied by the fact that I did work on it and received results from it.
MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that withdrawals of anything from evidence when you take something away from a piece of evidence should be fully documented?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Not anything and fully documented, no. The fact that results were obtained on an item implies that we removed blood from that item. I described the item that is worked on and results are obtained from it. There is no reason to make exact notations of the quantity that is used, particularly in a liquid sample from a living individual.
MR. BLASIER: Is there a reason to make any notation?
MR. MATHESON: There is notation in that work was done on it and results were obtained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you indicated that that particular withdrawal was approximately one milliliter, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I believe I gave a range, that it could have been from a half to one.
MR. BLASIER: And how much actual blood do you need to use for the testing that you did? It is not very much, is it?
MR. MATHESON: For the ABO test it would take about--the actual test consumes about six drops, the electrophoresis altogether probably doesn't even take a drop, but there are things such as a blood clinging to the sides of the pipettes and that type of thing, and that would be it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, so the testing takes I think about six plus--six drops total?
MR. MATHESON: Probably six to eight, somewhere in there.
MR. BLASIER: And there are how many drops in a milliliter, approximately?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately 20.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you--the blood that you didn't use for that particular withdrawal, you put back, didn't you?
MR. MATHESON: Not necessarily.
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall talking to Mr. Ragle in about August at the time that he visited the lab about whether you put that blood back or not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall telling him that you put the blood back?
MR. MATHESON: I believe I said I thought I did, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And so that if you put the blood back then all of it would go back into the tube, with the exception of the six or eight drops that you use, plus what might have clung to the tube?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And have you ever done any kind of test to determine how much would cling to the tube?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want you to assume for purposes of a hypothetical that you started with eight milliliters of blood. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to use the exhibit.
THE COURT: No. I still told you you have one piece of the foundation that is not there yet.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, to save some time, may we approach?
THE COURT: Proceed. We've had this discussion, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Mr. Matheson, for purposes of this hypothetical let's assume that eight milliliters of blood was drawn from Mr. Simpson on the 13th. Okay?
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: And the toxicology records indicate that on 6/20 there was five .5 milliliters left, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for the hypothetical.
MR. BLASIER: He has testified on the record.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: And the only withdrawal from Mr. Simpson's blood between the 13th and the 20th was Mr. Yamauchi's one milliliter, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that under that hypothetical with those figures, as of the 20th, there is approximately 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood unaccounted for?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, your Honor. Argumentative, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Approximately that would be the difference between what toxicology approximated on their date versus what is being told to me and the assumption of starting with eight.
MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many drops are in 1.5 milliliters?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if we assume that there is approximately 20 in a milliliter, that would give us about thirty drops.
MR. BLASIER: And one drop of blood, depending on the size of the swatch that you use, you can make at least five swatches, can you not?
MR. MATHESON: Depending on the size of the swatch, sure.
MR. BLASIER: You could actually make more than five, correct?
MR. MATHESON: You can make four and you can make less, yes, or more.
MR. BLASIER: So to--I'm sorry?
MR. MATHESON: Depends on the size, yes, you could either make more or you could make less.
MR. BLASIER: So if you used a size swatch that allowed you to make five swatches per drop, with 1.5 milliliters of blood you could make 150 swatches, couldn't you?
MR. MATHESON: Given that hypothetical, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you testified on direct that blood that is collected in a vacutainer has a preservative in it called EDTA, correct?
MR. MATHESON: In this particular tube, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that is a chemical that is put in there to keep the blood from coagulating, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It is my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there are procedures that are available to determine whether that particular chemical is present, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for this witness.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of procedures available called gas chromatograph mass spectrometry to determine the presence of that chemical?
MR. MATHESON: I know that GCMS, which is the short version of the instrument you used, does exist, and it is used for identifying different types of chemicals and things. I don't know of any specific procedure and never been involved in testing for EDTA, but I would assume it can be done.
MR. BLASIER: Now, hypothetically--
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for any further questions along this line.
THE COURT: I haven't heard the question.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: I haven't heard the question.
MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically, Mr. Matheson, if blood from this case from an evidence item, such as from the back gate, showed the presence of a chemical EDTA, would you agree that that is consistent with it possibly coming from a reference vial?
MR. GOLDBERG: That is improper hypothetical. It is inconsistent with the known facts.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: As you stated it, if it was present and if it was able to be identified in it, it is possible that it could have come from some type of reference sample that previously contained EDTA. I don't know what the sensitivity limits are of the instrument or exactly how much EDTA is placed into a tube, but given the hypotheticals you just stated, it is possible.
MR. BLASIER: And hypothetically, if there was the chemical EDTA found in the blood on the socks, would your answer be the same, that that would indicate that it may have come from a reference vial?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, improper hypothetical. No facts, no foundation for it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
MR. MATHESON: We would also have to assume or make the assumption in it that there is no other source of EDTA that could have gotten on those socks, then, yes, I would agree.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I see Miss Clark is here. I wonder if we could handle that other matter now. I am getting close to that point.
THE COURT: Why don't you finish what you have here and we will take that up at our break.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we respectfully request the Court's guidance on the use of an exhibit?
THE COURT: Counsel, we've had this discussion.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, do you have any information regarding the amount of blood that was originally drawn from Mr. Simpson?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any personal knowledge of--do you have any information regarding the amount of blood that was drawn from Mr. Simpson?
MR. GOLDBERG: As phrased, no foundation for personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: The only information I have regarding that quantity was what I heard during the preliminary hearing.
MR. BLASIER: And that was from the nurse who drew it, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: This calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any reason to believe that the amount of blood drawn from Mr. Simpson was anything other than eight milliliters?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that calls for speculation and hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I am ready to move on to the next topic.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take a 15-minute recess at this point for the jury. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We will see you back here in about fifteen minutes. Mr. Matheson, you can step down.
MR. MATHESON: Thank you.
(At 10:11 A.M. the jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that--everybody be seated, please. All right. The record will reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Blasier, what is the relevance of 118?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, 118 is a knife that was found outside of Mr. Simpson's estate on July 2nd and was turned over to the police at that time. It was a knife that was not there on the 13th. It had obviously been planted there by somebody. It had blood on it. That blood was tested and it came back as an EAP type B which is the same type of blood as the blood under the fingernails of Nicole Brown Simpson, according to Mr. Matheson's own test results. Therefore, it is relevant as it may be a knife--and I would also indicate that the size of the knife is consistent with the wounds on the victim. And I would argue that it is relevant on the issue of possibly having blood of a perpetrator other than Mr. Simpson on it. Your Honor, I ask Mr. Matheson to step out, please.
THE COURT: For this discussion?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: No. Is that it?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: No. 1 thing, your Honor, is that the whole area was swept with metal detectors on June 28th. The second thing is that this was discovered, what, one week thereafter on July 2nd or 3rd, by Detective Payne pursuant to a tip concerning the people that allegedly found it there. And those people turned it over wrapped in a blouse. What is ridiculous about the Defense position is that the areas of the knife that were tested and turned up in EAP type B was on the tip, the end of the blade of the knife. That is not going to be the blood of the perpetrator; that is going to be the blood of the victim. So what Mr. Blasier is a saying is that that is inconsistent with a true type B and not a BA, then this knife is completely irrelevant, because as we know for sure, none of these victims was a type B. Now, if what Mr. Blasier would like to argue is that this is actually the blood that is a BA type degraded to a B, that is fine. I don't know what he does with his inconsistent argument that the type B found under her fingernails was actually not a BA degraded but a real B. That becomes internally inconsistent. So their position is revealed, by their insistence on this piece of evidence, to be both logically and scientifically ridiculous. There is no relevance because it was obviously not there at the relevant time. It was planted there by someone else. We also have a situation in the testing of this item that reveals that there is no PGM obtainable. Obviously what we have is very degraded blood on this knife. The EAP came back B in one spot and--excuse me, your Honor. I'm talking fast because I know you want to get this done. And B inconclusive on the EAP marker, but there was no PGM obtainable from it at all, showing how severely degraded this blood is. So that all of those factors put together reveal how irrelevant this piece of evidence, quote-unquote, really is. I would like for Mr. Matheson to address further the scientific issues, if the Court would like to hear that, concerning the significance of the degradation, the loss of the PGM marker. What is interesting in contrast is that the fingernail scrapings from underneath Miss Brown's fingernails reveals we do have a PGM type that is consistent with her which tends to further buttress the blood type EAP is a degraded BA, but on this knife we have nothing. All we have is an EAP that shows a B and a B inconclusive, no PGM activity on the blade of the knife, which would be the blood of the victim, so what does that have to do with this case at a point in time after the metal detectors have swept the area? It is more nonsense red herring is what it is, and under 352 it would be unduly misleading, confusing and time consuming to this jury to chase down yet another dead-end that the Defense wants to shove in their face. May I confer one moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Yes. Mr. Darden points out further that it would take about five witnesses to resolve this. We would need the searches, who did the metal detector sweep. We would need Detective Payne who received the tip. We would need the persons who found the knife. That is another three people who found it. And then the analysis of the knife by Mr. Matheson. We are talking about quite a lot of time to chase down something that is completely not only irrelevant, but ludicrous in this trial.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I resent the notion that we planted this evidence. There were four people that have nothing to do with this case that we've talked to who found that knife.
THE COURT: I didn't hear that comment made, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: I did, I'm sorry.
MS. CLARK: I never said that.
MR. BLASIER: They say it is not relevant because they don't want to believe it. It has blood on it that is consistent with the blood under the fingernails. That makes it relevant. Whether they like it or not, that is relevant evidence and everything she said goes to weight; it should not go to admissibility.
THE COURT: All right. I will make, for the purpose of this particular item, the package of reports, Court's exhibit no. 10.
(Court's 20 for id = reports)
THE COURT: All right. Let me read it and we will take a recess and we will see what we do with it.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, before we do that, I would like to make a record on the exhibit, if I might.
THE COURT: Counsel, you had your opportunity.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I don't think we did it on the record and I apologize if I have missed some step here, but I don't like to play a guessing game, but I don't know what you want. I thought we had covered everything that we had talked about and I'm asking as a courtesy for some guidance. That is all.
THE COURT: We will stand in recess.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. I've had the opportunity to review the stack of reports, and I'm going to at this time sustain the objection first on the basis of foundation, secondly on the basis of evidence code section 352 given the, at this point, speculative nature as to where this particular item came from, how it was found, how it came to the police attention at a date significantly past the relevant dates where these locations were previously searched. I'll sustain the objection.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor--
THE COURT: As to the--
MR. BLASIER: Sorry.
THE COURT: As to the exhibit, Mr. Blasier, the Court's concern is the initial assumption as to the initial amount. What I'm saying to you and what I've indicated to you is that at this point, I don't think you have the foundation for it. At some later point in time, I suspect you will.
MR. BLASIER: You know, I thought maybe that's what you were getting at.
THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What I wanted to do though and is do that subject to connection. And obviously I can make an offer of proof that the nurse testified at the prelim it was eight millimeters, and the People have been allowed to introduce test results from that blood vial subject to connection and I'm simply asking for the same.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: And all exhibits were subject to connection as well.
THE COURT: My problem though with this one, Mr. Blasier, is that it is in the form of argument, and since it is demonstrative evidence--
MR. BLASIER: Actually, your Honor, I have a plate to cover up that. I have a plate so there's no text on it at all. Can I use it under those circumstances?
THE COURT: Let me see it. You've modified it since yesterday morning?
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: You've modified it since yesterday morning?
MR. BLASIER: No. Actually, I had a plate in case there was a problem with that particular entry.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Works for me.
THE COURT: Works for me. You know, if you anticipate these things to begin with, Mr. Blasier, I mean, why do we have these pitch battles over things that you--well, never mind. Never mind.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is the Court now reversing its ruling as to the use of the board?
THE COURT: I said that that could not be used given the way it was marked because I didn't think it was factually correct. All right?
MR. GOLDBERG: But there's still some factual inaccuracies that I mentioned to the Court yesterday which I don't think the Court felt that I could get to such as the fact that the dates are--
THE COURT: I thought all of that--
MR. GOLDBERG: The amounts were approximations on the business records that have the little squiggly.
THE COURT: No, I understand that. All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And--
THE COURT: Given the modifications--I'm sorry. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on one of them, it indicated that Mr. Matheson had removed blood on the 25th when it was Mr. Yama--excuse me--Mr. Matheson had removed blood on the 25th when in fact it was Mr. Yamauchi.
THE COURT: I thought all the notations had been withdrawn from that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are all of them withdrawn?
MR. BLASIER: I won't put anything up there--
THE COURT: All I saw was a test tube and amounts. I saw no dates, times, places, people.
MR. BLASIER: I did have some tact. I only do what he agrees with, certainly. I won't do the one with--
THE COURT: Just out of curiosity, given the magnetic nature of that, how heavy is that?
MR. BLASIER: Actually it's not too heavy.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the amounts are--don't designate that they're approximates and there is no designation of the amount that Mr. Matheson used during his testing.
MR. BLASIER: If Mr. Goldberg will tell me how to make an approximate blank for that, I'll be happy to do it. I don't know how.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. BLASIER: He's going to testify they're approximations.
THE COURT: All right. Any other comment, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the problem with the amounts is that they're asserted to be definite. They're not approximations. And also, there's no foundation from the witnesses as to how they measured them. We heard from Mr. Matheson how he made his estimations when he came up with an approximation, but the blood vial contained two milliliters at a point in time that we know it had to have at least 3.8 milliliters. And from that, he concluded that he at least has a margin of error of greater than--equal to or greater than 1.3 milliliters. So to put before this jury what is at this point an argument asserting precise numbers when we don't know how the measurement was made, we don't know under what circumstances, we don't know what the margin of error was on the measurements is misleading. And also, this doesn't calculate the amount of blood that stuck to the pipetters and the micro centrifuge tubes, which can be fairly considerable when you add it all up.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. All right. Well, here's the thing though. The Court controls the order of proof. I'll allow this subject to a motion to strike. It's the same situation. The foundation for the blood itself, I've allowed subject to a motion to strike. I'll allow this, which is the same topic, subject to a motion to strike since all of this--excuse me--this particular exhibit has been completely modified to take away all of the other notations other than the amounts. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we did check on the photographs--I'm sorry--and we did not get the particular photographs the Defense introduced in discovery.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take that up at the noon break. We'll take that up at the noon break.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, may I display the exhibit?
THE COURT: You may. Have we marked this yet?
MR. BLASIER: I don't think we have.
THE CLERK: 1139.
THE COURT: 1139.
(Deft's 1139 for id = chart)
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Well, that may be the max there, Mr. Douglas, on this one.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you just a few more questions about the blood vial, and I want you to assume again hypothetically that there was originally eight milliliters of blood in that vial. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your records indicate--the business records indicate that on June 14th, Collin Yamauchi withdrew approximately one milliliter, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And I'm afraid this is much too high. Can you reach that, take off the one ml.?
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, for the purpose of this presentation, I would suggest we move this over here so it's actually more--
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, actually that's the only one I can't reach.
MR. COCHRAN: He's seen it all already.
THE COURT: Let's put it here.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be easier to work with.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, do you agree that, following our hypothetical, that as of the 14th, after Mr. Yamauchi withdrew his approximately one milliliter, there would be approximately seven milliliters left if you started with eight?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now--now, the toxicology records that we talked about indicated that as of June 20th, there was 5.5 milliliters remaining, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately according to the records, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there were no other withdrawals between Mr. Yamauchi's withdrawal on the 14th and when toxicology did their analysis on approximately the 20th, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So you would agree, would you not, that if that is the case, that there were approximately 1.5 milliliters of blood unaccounted for that Mr.--gone from Mr. Simpson's reference tubes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, unaccounted for, your Honor, calls for conclusion, speculation.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know where that 1.5 milliliters went, Mr. Matheson?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. Rephrase the question though.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that, according to your own business records, that if there were 5.5 milliliters of blood remaining on the 21st and there had only been one milliliter taken out of that blood and you started with eight, there would be 1.5 milliliters unaccounted for?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also argumentative as to unaccounted for.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: 1.5 milliliters less in that tube than you would expect?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the next withdrawal that your records indicate is on the 25th, and that would be--I'm sorry--the withdrawal for toxicology, would you agree that the records indicate that that micro centrifuge tube which holds 1.5 milliliters maximum was taken and some of that was returned?
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry. I don't understand. You mean some of the tube or some of the blood in the tube?
MR. BLASIER: No. I mean--let me do that one again. The blood vial that you've examined that we saw in the picture has that micro centrifuge tube back in it, correct, with the vial?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And there's still some blood in that micro centrifuge tube, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. BLASIER: And that originally as a maximum would have held 1.5 milliliters, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And according to Mr. Yamauchi's notes, he estimated that there was approximately three-quarters of a mill left, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's what he recorded, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that, therefore, toxicology would have used approximately, at a maximum, about three-quarters of a milliliter?
MR. MATHESON: At a maximum, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if we remove three-quarters of a milliliter, we're now down to roughly 6.2, 6.3; would you agree?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately, yes.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, the next withdrawal was Mr. Yamauchi on the 25th for purposes of ABO typing and other serological typing, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And his records indicate that he took approximately .75, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I'm going to take down .70 to be conservative, even though it was .75.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to that being conservative. That's an under estimation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase that.
MR. BLASIER: Well--
THE COURT: That's argument, counsel. Just take it down.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm trying to figure out how to get to .75 here, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: This is approximately .05. Would that look like approximately .05? Very small amount, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: In relation to the rest of your bars, yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: All right. And if you remove .75, according to the business records that you've referred to, that would leave at that point approximately 5.5, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated at that point that you took--there was a small thread of just a couple of drops by Mr. Yamauchi on or about the 27th, correct? Correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: On the 27th or thereabouts, Mr. Yamauchi took an extremely small amount for a thread for electrophoresis, correct?
MR. MATHESON: He prepared threads for electrophoresis, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that requires almost nothing, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the threads themselves require very little, but you do have loss in what's in the spot plate and what's in the pipetter.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, the Defense was allowed to take one milliliter in September, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's in--and there are records of that; are there not?
MR. MATHESON: They were given approximately one milliliter, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that at some point, you took out some blood, but the amount is not reflected in any business record anywhere?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So as far as the business records are concerned, in terms of what's written down and when there are withdrawals, when there is an amount indicated, under the hypothetical, if-- incidentally, have we taken off everything to account for all of the withdrawals where there is an amount written down?
MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. The only thing remaining is the one that you didn't write the amount down, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, assume hypothetically again that on Sep--on January, when you measured the quantity of blood left in both the reference tube and the micro centrifuge tube, there was a total of 2.8 or--I am sorry--2.6 milliliters. Do you have that assumption in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Going off that assumption, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under that hypothetical, following just the business records of withdrawals, that as of January of 1995, there would be a total of approximately 1.9 milliliters of blood unaccounted for?
MR. GOLDBERG: Object to the phrase "unaccounted for" as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Unaccounted for by the business records.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's still argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: If you're referring to only those that are specifically recorded and not taking into account what is left in pipettes, but actually what was delivered in certain areas, then that's an approximation, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And by your earlier testimony, in terms of the number of swatches, if you could get 150 swatches out of 1.5 milliliters, you could get correspondingly more swatches out of 1.9. Would you agree with that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, given the hypothetical.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the only other withdrawal that we know about that you've testified is the one that you did where you did not write down any particular amount, correct?
MR. MATHESON: As I'm sitting here right now, right, that sounds correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated that you started with a half to one milliliter, that's your best recollection?
MR. MATHESON: I would say I used a minimum of a half mill and it could be as high as one.
MR. BLASIER: And according to what you had told us before, you don't recall it now, but you put it back?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I remember making that comment.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. What you didn't use.
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you used approximately six to eight drops?
MR. MATHESON: For--that is the amount that would actually be consumed in the test. That is not the amount that would not make its way back to the vial.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. There are other amounts that were clinging to the side of the microcen--of whatever, pipette or whatever you used to remove the blood, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. That's why I gave the low end of being a .5 milliliter.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you--now, you indicated I think a couple days ago that rough estimate on what might have been caught on the side of the tubes was a quarter of a mill, .25?
MR. MATHESON: It's a rough approximation. It's possible.
MR. BLASIER: Now--and the seven or--six or eight drops accounts for approximately how much?
MR. MATHESON: As far as--
MR. BLASIER: How many milliliters?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if we're using 20 as an approximation, the number drops per mill, that's a little less than half a milliliter.
MR. BLASIER: Little more than a quarter?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So if we say, therefore, then approximately a quarter to half is lost on the sides of the containers and is used up by you and you took out one to start with, that would reduce the total amount of blood in the vial by half a milliliter; would you agree?
MR. MATHESON: In that instance, yes. That would be an approximation.
MR. BLASIER: And if we remove a half a milliliter, we have now accounted for all of the known withdrawals that are recorded anywhere from Mr. Simpson's reverend sample, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's argumentative because it was based on the hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically. Under our hypothetical we've been talking about, we've accounted for everything that, under the hypothetical, was taken out of Mr. Simpson's reference tube, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you've accounted for everything except for--you know, we gave this situation of the approximate amount that would be left in the vial that I worked on or the centrifuge tube that I worked on. We have not taken into account--excuse me--every other transfer device or measuring device that is done by other people; example being, when we gave a milliliter to the Defense on the date of I believe it was September 30th, there is going to be some retained in that. We delivered approximately a milliliter, but there is going to be a little bit more. And every time you open the cap up, there's blood clinging to the inside of the cap. You set that down normally with a chem-wipe, blood is going to be lost into the chem-wipe at that point. So there's constantly little bits that are going out just in the process of handling, and that has not yet been taken into account.
MR. BLASIER: And these are--when you say approximately one milliliter was removed, that means it could be less too, correct? All of those approximations could be lower?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in relation to the one that Mr. Yamauchi did on my transfer of the amount that I provided for the Defense, that was done with a calibrated pipette. So one milliliter was delivered then plus whatever adhered to the tips and to the vials and that type of thing would have been not returned.
MR. BLASIER: With the other entries, withdrawals that your people did, those are estimates and could be slightly less than a milliliter, correct?
MR. MATHESON: They are approximations, yes. They could be either slightly less or slightly more.
MR. BLASIER: So would you agree under the hypothetical that as of January, taking into account all of the other withdrawals that we talked about, there is still approximately 1.5 milliliters that is not accounted for from the records and from your recollection of the withdrawal?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative as to "accounted for."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I would say that it is probably less than that because the other factors I mentioned like losing it in the handling, opening the tube and the pipettes and that type of thing.
MR. BLASIER: We can take this down.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the blood found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is it true that in homicide cases, particularly homicide cases involving some form of assault, physical assault, it is routine to collect the fingernails of the victims?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And the purpose for that is that the victim, possibly in an assault case, might fight back and might scratch someone and, therefore, get biological material like blood from the perpetrator under the fingernails, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the reasons for collecting them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there's even more reason to do that if you have a--an assaultive situation where the victim has defensive wounds on his or her hand indicating a possible struggle?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for this witness' opinion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: In any event, those are routinely taken for purposes of determining whether you can identify a perpetrator's blood under a victim's fingernails, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled. Is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, as I understand it, that was done in this case and you conducted an examination of the scrapings from under the fingernails of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And there were scrapings taken from both hands under all the fingernails on each hand, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the numbers that we've used to designate those are 84-A and B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's the evidence item number that was used and the number that you've used in your lab for your testing purposes, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And 84-A is which hand?
MR. MATHESON: Referring to my analyzed evidence report that lists those items, 84-A is the left hand scrapings, 84-B is the right hand scrapings.
MR. BLASIER: And the test results that you got from running an EAP test were that the blood under those nails on both hands was a type B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's what the results were, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there was no one in this case that you have identified that has an EAP type B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson doesn't have an EAP type B, does he?
MR. MATHESON: No, he does not.
MR. BLASIER: So would you agree then that if your test results are accurate, that there is blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails from someone other than Mr. Simpson?
MR. MATHESON: If the B is an actual B, yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's the results that you reported out, was a B, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates his reports and his findings.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Along--that's correct, along with an explanation alternative. (Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you Defendant's--I'm sorry--People's 218. Now, that was--you testified that that was your analyzed evidence report stating the results of your testing on the fingernails among other things?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. BLASIER: There's another document that is actually your report, correct?
MR. MATHESON: No. This is a report on a completely different set of items.
MR. BLASIER: Have you been shown your report on the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: I have that sitting in front of me in my notebook. It isn't what you handed me.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: May I have a document marked, please, a three-page document titled "analyzed evidence report"?
THE COURT: 1140, Mrs. Robertson?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 1140, Mr. Blasier. Why don't you compare that with what Mr. Matheson has in his notebook.
MR. BLASIER: Dated 9-8-94.
MR. GOLDBERG: This was already introduced, your Honor.
THE COURT: What--
MR. BLASIER: Let me--I thought that that was the other three-page report.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think it was 218, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: That's what we just looked at.
THE COURT: Mr. Matheson has 218. He indicates that is the wrong report.
MR. MATHESON: Well, no. What I have in front of me is two pages that are marked as 216 and a third page that is 218. It's a mixture of my two sets of reports.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you take a look at that, Mr. Blasier. They appear to be paper-clipped together, an unusual clerical--
MR. BLASIER: I think maybe probably accidentally we got reports mixed up yesterday or the day before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I think there's one report that has only one--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to still have this marked as 1140.
THE COURT: All right. What is it, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: It is an analyzed evidence report dated 9-8-94.
THE COURT: All right. So marked. Proceed.
(Deft's 1140 for id = analyzed evd. Report)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you a document titled "analyzed evidence report" dated 9-8-94. Is that--that is your complete report for the analysis of these items including the fingernails, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It is a copy of it, yes, with some areas that have been blacked out.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you Prosecution exhibit 218. What is that?
MR. MATHESON: This is the third page or a copy of the third page of that analyzed evidence report.
MR. BLASIER: And that was not provided to you at the time you were asked to testify about your report by the Prosecution, was it?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague and also not relevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Have you testified about page 2 of that document at all yet in this proceeding?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Take a look at page 2, please, for me.
(Witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now--
THE COURT: When you say, "that document," are we talking about 1140?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: When you do a test such as the test that you did on the fingernails, you have what are called work papers, correct?
MR. MATHESON: There are electrophoresis work sheets, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And those are documents that you fill out while you're doing the actual bench work; you write down your observations of what you think the results are and how the test is done and that sort of thing, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And after you do that, you prepare a final report from those bench notes, correct?
MR. MATHESON: The--actually the bench notes of the--all of the different electrophoresis runs that are associated with the case then are placed onto what we call a summary sheet, which brings all the results from all the tests together into one place along with some of the observations, and the information from the summary sheet is then transferred onto the final report.
MR. BLASIER: And the summary sheet is your final reading of typing for tests that you've done, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It lists, yes, the final readings.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to display this on the elmo. We need to--may I put this on the elmo?
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor, before--
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to object to the showing of this report as it is being done right now.
THE COURT: What's the basis, the legal basis?
MR. GOLDBERG: It contains inadmissible evidence and--and inadequate foundation. I articulate it.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at sidebar. Let me have--let me see the document.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this document presents the results on many items or lack of results on many items. We did not go into it at all, present any evidence. Some of them are just straight inconclusives. So it does go beyond the scope of the direct under 352.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: The whole point of this--first of all, he did not introduce this. It was misleading to introduce just the third page of this report. In any event, the--one of his main arguments is that because the B that he found might be something other than a B, because item 42, for instance, looks like a B, he rated it as inconclusive, and all these other things that he's found inconclusive cannot be used to bolster or to change the results he's reported down here, a BA, are all relevant to the argument he's making that a B is anything other than a B and inadmissible for those purposes. This is the same kind of chart we have up there. That's where the information came from.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know that that's the same kind of chart we have up there. The witness did testify on his chart, all of these were reported as inconclusive and at some length described the difference and distinction why they're inconclusive on his report and why he calls them that on the serology work sheets, and that's the point. You know, he went into it at some length, that's true.
THE COURT: How many of these are you going into, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: Primarily 42.
MR. GOLDBERG: But the issue is that in order to get into it, he doesn't need this report.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it contains many results here that the jurors are never going to hear anything about.
THE COURT: All right. You can use the results as to 42 and 84, but the rest of it, there's just--I mean, we've got 20 other results there that I don't want to get into.
MR. BLASIER: Can I show the document and just talk about those two?
THE COURT: No.
MR. BLASIER: Not show the document?
THE COURT: Not show the document, but you can go into 42 and 84.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show one of the People's charts.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, which chart is this?
MR. BLASIER: I think it's 302.
THE COURT: No. Well, when it comes down, we'll take a look at it.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, you've seen that chart before. You've testified about it, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: And in that chart, it's indicated that--by the way, who prepared this chart?
MR. MATHESON: It was prepared by the D.A.'s office.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't prepare it, did you?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Item no. 42 is the sample taken from the area under Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the arguments that the Prosecution is using to say that your test results on the nail scrapings are something other than they are--
THE COURT: Counsel, you need to rephrase that question.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. And for the record, this is People's 202, the chart.
MR. BLASIER: In your report that you prepared after your analysis, you determined that item 42 was inconclusive, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And what's the scientific definition or meaning of the term "inconclusive"?
MR. MATHESON: Inconclusive to me means that there's not a conclusive decision or conclusive statement that can be made about the results.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't it--doesn't it mean scientifically that you can make no statements about the source of the stain when it's inconclusive?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I would not--I don't report an inconclusive result. So yes, I would not make a statement about the source based on an inconclusive result.
MR. BLASIER: Now, but in this case, you're asking to make some conclusion about the source of the stain, of 42, even though it's an inconclusive, aren't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: That's argumentative, the way it's phrased.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on your final report, when you reported your findings on 84-A and B, does your report say B asterisk?
MR. MATHESON: No, it does not.
MR. BLASIER: It says B, doesn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It says B for both the left hand and the right hand, doesn't it?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do I understand that it's your position now from your testimony that you're asking that--or you're stating that the B is something other than a B?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony too.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I'm not saying that the B that I observed is anything other than what I am seeing, and that's the two bands in the B area. I'm merely stating that there is possible other explanations in addition to it being a type B.
MR. BLASIER: Now, all of the other serological results that you've testified to, you testified that your results are accurate or you believe they're accurate, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That also misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I believe all of my results are accurate.
MR. BLASIER: Is there any other tests that you did where you got a reading or a result that you reported that you're asking us to accept as being inaccurate except that one?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not stating that this one is inaccurate. I'm just stating that there is an alternate explanation for what I'm seeing on the gel.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So it looks like a B, doesn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: And what you're saying is that in your opinion, sometimes something else can look like a B that isn't a B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's a BA, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: But in this case, you saw a B, didn't you?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how long has the Los Angeles Police Department been using the EAP system?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that we have been running EAP as part of a system for--well, it was in existence when I started doing my testing, which was in 1982, and I believe it had been being used for a few years before that, two to four, six, something like that.
MR. BLASIER: Can you give me just a real rough estimate of the number of cases that you've worked on where you've done an EAP test?
MR. MATHESON: I would like to check my record and see if I made an estimation of that.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The chart that I prepared of tests that I run did not include the EAP. I can give you a rough estimate based on some of the other markers that I've done.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MATHESON: And I would say that I have run somewhere between, oh, probably 14-, 1500 and about 2,000 items for that marker.
MR. BLASIER: And an EAP type B is a fairly common type, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it is, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So can you give us--do you know what percentage of the population is a B?
MR. MATHESON: I would have to check another chart that I have.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you do that.
(The witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: According to our statistics that we use, it's approximately 50 percent of the general population.
MR. BLASIER: And would it be fair to infer from that that of the approximately 1500 times you've done this test, roughly half of them would come back EAP B?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And have you testified in Court before about EAP results that have come back as a B?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: And of course, in these approximately 750 cases, I assume you've written reports that have said, "I tested it. Looks like an EAP B to me," correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: In all of those reports, do you write down, "you know, it could be a BA"?
MR. MATHESON: Not in all those reports, no. I do include that disclaimer when the EAP is a source of elimination or exclusion in a sample.
MR. BLASIER: Have you testified in Court where an EAP B happens to be the type of the suspect and also the evidence you've tested, that it's an EAP type B without giving that disclaimer?
MR. MATHESON: Like I just mentioned, I will put that it's a B unless it's an exclusion of some type.
MR. BLASIER: Can I take that as a yes, you have so testified in cases that an EAP B result is a B when it incriminates a Defendant without saying that it could have been a BA?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, as I understand your argument that this B that you found is something other than a B is based on two things; one, scientific literature?
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, would you--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Would you rephrase that question, please, when you start out, "your argument that".
MR. BLASIER: You testified yesterday that one of the reasons you're here to say that a b--that this B might have been a BA is because of the scientific literature, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the things, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the other things is that--that you're using--that you testified to is that because sample 42 has the same findings or similar findings as 85 and since 42 appears to have come from the victim, then, therefore, the fingernail--the blood under the fingernails may have come from the victim as well. Have I got that right?
MR. MATHESON: No. I believe the other reason that I use is personal experience in both this case and other cases.
MR. BLASIER: Did you not use the example of 42 as well?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, but I don't think that was your question on this particular instance.
MR. BLASIER: Had you ever written any papers or published anything on EAP systems?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever kept track of your research or your case work on EAP systems where you have this phenomenon developed when you have a B that might be something other than a B?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that your personal experience is based on anecdotal information?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative as to "anecdotal."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It's based on experiences I've had in casework.
MR. BLASIER: Now I would like to start the slide presentation we talked about.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: And this will be 1141. This will be slide a and this will be a through G, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1141 for id = slides a through z)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, when you conduct an EAP test, the final product of that test is what's called an electrophoretogram, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It's a photograph of the electrophoresis run, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that's a picture of where the bands ended up on the gel after you did the test, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the EAP system, as you testified before, has three possible alleles or results that you can get in terms of the component that might come from one parent or the other, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's either an A, a B or a C?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. There are--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
MR. MATHESON: Other common types, yes.
MR. BLASIER: There are a couple rare types that are almost never found?
MR. MATHESON: There are many rares, yes.
MR. BLASIER: For all practical purposes, the field is limited to an A, a B or a C?
MR. MATHESON: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if someone inherited the B characteristic from both parents, then they would appear as a B?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And if someone interpreted the a characteristic from both parents, they would be an A?
MR. MATHESON: That's true.
MR. BLASIER: And if someone inherited an a from mom and a B from dad, they would be a BA?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's basically how it works, and the same thing would apply if you got a c from one of your parents?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the way you determine what an EAP type is is by looking at the bands on the gel to see where they stopped when you turned the current off, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the factors in this, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you've seen--you've seen these slides before. We looked at these yesterday. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And the slide that's up there now is a--is your electrophoretogram for run number 7310, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And does that appear to be an accurate picture of that slide?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I might indicate that--we talked about this yesterday--sometimes the slides when you scan them in the computer don't pick up all of the nuances of the banding patterns, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that's correct, yes. Some things may not show up as well being projected like this and looking at the original photograph.
MR. BLASIER: And we have the original photographs, so we can look at those at some point, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. I have them here.
MR. BLASIER: Now--
MR. BLASIER: Could we go to the next slide, please?
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've drawn a box around a band--or I'm sorry--a lane in the middle of this electrophoretogram, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And this is what's called a standard. In other words, you knew what this was before you tested it, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you knew this was a BA?
MR. MATHESON: That's true.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason you do this is so that you can look at your unknown evidence that you're testing and--well, let me rephrase that. The reason you do this is because you want to see if the test worked okay. If this comes back the way you expected it to, that's a good indication the test worked?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the reasons, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this particular lane in the middle, this BA standard, came back the way it's supposed to, didn't it?
MR. MATHESON: That's a typical looking BA, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And--
MR. BLASIER: Let's go to the next slide. This slide's c? C.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've drawn boxes around the various bands in that standard, and there are four bands, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there are.
MR. BLASIER: Go to the next slide, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've removed the picture from the background so it's a little bit easier to see. Those four bands are called b-1, a-1, b-2 and a-2, aren't they?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the designations for them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Can we go to the next slide, please?
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've colored them in so that they're a little bit easier to distinguish. Now, if someone is an A, they're going to have two bands located at a-1 and a-2, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That's what you would expect to see?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: If somebody is a B, you would expect to see two bands, one at b-1, one at b-2, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Go to the next slide, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you--would you agree that if you saw that particular banding pattern depicted on slide F, that's a BA?
MR. MATHESON: It's a rough graphical demonstration of it. It has a little bit of a problem in that it doesn't indicate the intensity differences in the bands.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Well, let me ask you about that. The--you talked about how the intensity of a band might affect the reading, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It definitely does affect the reading, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, c bands, which are not on this diagram, correspond in position to the B bands, don't they?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.
MR. BLASIER: So that you can have a c with a banding pattern that--that is at the same space as is on the electrophoretogram as the B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. The two c bands run the same distance as the B bands.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the ways that you tell the difference between a c and a B is by the differences in intensities of the various--of those two bands, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, not one of the ways. "the way"--
MR. BLASIER: "the way."
MR. MATHESON: --is to tell the difference--look at the difference in the intensities or brightnesses of the bands.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if you're talking about comparing an a and a B, however, none of those bands overlap, do they?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.
MR. BLASIER: So if your universe is limited to an a or a B, band intensity is irrelevant, correct?
MR. MATHESON: No, that's not true.
MR. BLASIER: What is the effect of band intensity on telling the difference between an a and a B?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as telling the difference between the two--I'm sorry if I misunderstood your last question--it doesn't make a difference. It does make a difference when evaluating the sample and whether or not you call it, because--
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. MATHESON: --you expect to see intensities in certain ways, as far as the result goes.
MR. BLASIER: But as far as distinguishing an a from a B, it's irrelevant?
MR. MATHESON: The intensities, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, may we have the next slide, please?
MR. BLASIER: Now, this is the pattern you would expect to see with a type B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Again, except for the fact that the b-2 is the more intense and would be larger and the b-1 is less intense.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But in terms of relative position, that's correct, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: That's true.
MR. BLASIER: And the next slide, please?
THE COURT: Hold on. This one is which?
MR. BLASIER: That was G. This is h.
THE COURT: All right. You need to, for the purpose of the record, let me know which one you're bringing up.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: And correspondingly, the column on the right, that's what an a would look like in terms of the position of the bands?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please. That's i.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, this is a picture of the electrophoretogram that contains the fingernails; is it not?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this has a lot of little dots and things on it that are extraneous results that sometimes come up in these tests, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. The dots, the round dots that you see are not related to the EAP or the information from the samples.
MR. BLASIER: And the scientific term for that is schmutz, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Actually, I don't think I've heard that term, but--
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Mr. Scheck told me. Next slide, please. This is j.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've circled or boxed three lanes of that electrophoretogram, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, you have.
MR. BLASIER: And the lane on the right of the box is your BA standard lane, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the two lanes next to it to the left are 84-A and 84-B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now I'm going to isolate just those three bands, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that's slide K. Now let's go to l.
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to make it a little bit bigger so we can look at it a little more carefully.
MR. BLASIER: Now let's go to m.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've drawn boxes around the bands in their approximate positions, correct?
MR. MATHESON: The approximate position, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me--let me back up a little bit. When we saw the picture of the electrophoretogram, it looked like it was a little bit bowed down at the sides, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it was quite a bit bowed at one point, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Quite a bit. And that happens sometimes as a function of the way the test is done, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It doesn't invalidate the test, does it?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. BLASIER: Because you can--you can adjust the bow to figure out where the bands are and essentially straighten it out in essence to figure out which bands you're looking at, can't you?
MR. MATHESON: You can sometimes, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the bands that I boxed there are slightly out of line with the standard because the electrophoretogram was bowed a little bit, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the boxes that I've put around the bands are--are the bands that you read when you did this test?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that's vague as to "the bands that you read."
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question, sir?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MATHESON: In the--
MR. BLASIER: Now--I'm sorry?
MR. MATHESON: In the case of 84-A and 84-B, those are two bands that are visible that are not the only parts of that area that are taken into account.
MR. BLASIER: But those are the bands that are there?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And next slide, please. Now, we've taken the background out to give it--so you can see it a little bit better. And that's N. Now let's do m.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I am going to object at this point on the grounds previously stated.
THE COURT: Noted.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought we were going to be clarified.
THE COURT: You were going to ask a question regarding the alignment of the boxes.
MR. BLASIER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I did.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, on--
MR. BLASIER: This is slide o.
MR. BLASIER: I've indicated that the bands from the fingernails are bands b-1 and b-2, and that's the bands that we saw on the electrophoretogram, correct?
MR. MATHESON: For those items under the 84-A and 84-B, that's correct. They're--roughly where they are don't take into account the curve and they don't take into account the intensity differences.
MR. BLASIER: Right. And if we adjusted the curve, those bands under 84-A and 84-B would line up with the standard B bands and the standard BA, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is correct.
MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now--and as you read in your report, the fingernail--I'm sorry--as you reported in your report, your reading of that test was that the--both fingernails from both hands were a type B, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that was slide P. Let's go to Q. Now we're back to our standard BA in Q. Let's go to R. Let's go to s.
MR. BLASIER: Part of your testimony the other day concerned the manner in which a BA can degrade, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if you have a BA, you would have the banding pattern that we have up on slide S, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Again, not taking into account the intensity differences, but that's the locations of the bands.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want you to assume for purposes of the hypothetical that the degradation that occurs when a BA degrades involves bands disappearing from the top down.
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical. No foundation for it.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me ask you about some of the scientific literature. You referred to an article by Grunbaum and Zajac in your direct testimony. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: I was directed to that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: There is other literature on the EAP systems, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you're familiar with that other literature; are you not?
MR. MATHESON: I've read some of them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you were provided with a copy of a number of different articles the other day; were you not?
MR. MATHESON: No, I was not.
MR. BLASIER: Oh. Are you familiar with an article by Dr. George Sensabaugh entitled "the utilization of polymorphic enzymes in forensic science"?
MR. MATHESON: I would like to see it, please.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MR. MATHESON: I have seen this, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And have you relied upon that in the way you evaluate the EAP system?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's overbroad, the question as phrased.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I have read this article and there is information in it that--regarding the EAP in general, is one of many references that I have referenced in relation to the EAP system.
MR. BLASIER: So it's one that you have considered and referred to?
MR. MATHESON: I have considered some of the infor--
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to consider; in what, in rendering an opinion?
THE COURT: We'll get there in a second.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do any research at all before your testimony on the rate at which, according to the scientific literature, a BA degrades to a B?
MR. MATHESON: I have done some reading on that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: What things did you read?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there was three or four articles that I read that related to degradation of EAP in general and many of them reference one particular way that it degrades.
MR. BLASIER: What articles did you read?
MR. MATHESON: If I could--I think a reference would give you a couple of them.
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: As mentioned earlier, one of the ones that I've read is this article that you presented before me. I also read an article entitled "Erythro Acid Phosphatase and Bloodstains" by Wraxall and Emes.
MR. BLASIER: When you say I showed you an article, that's it, isn't it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is. And I also referenced a book called "The Source Book," "Source Book and Forensic Serology, Immunology and Biochemistry," and I also read portions from a book called "Forensic Science Handbook" by Richard Saferstein.
MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with a technical note by a T.E. Yeshion, Y-E-S-H-I-O-N, titled "Thermal Degradation of Erythro Acid Phosphatase Isoenzymes in a Case Sample"?
MR. MATHESON: I read that one the other day, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And am I handing you what appears to be that article?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it appears to be.
MR. BLASIER: And have you ever reviewed and considered an article by R.A. Fisher and Harry Harris titled "studies on the separate isoenzymes of red cell acid phosphatase phenotypes A and B"?
MR. MATHESON: Again, I would like to see it, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. MATHESON: This one does not look familiar to me.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment to take a look at this?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, other than the Grunbaum article--incidentally, let me show you a copy of that and ask if this is the article that you testified about the other day.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it appears to be.
MR. BLASIER: Other than the Wraxall article, the Yeshion article, the Grunbaum article and the Sensabaugh article, are there any other scientific articles that you have reviewed specifically to look for how a BA degrades?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: In preparation for this case.
MR. MATHESON: I believe I mentioned two other references, something that is commonly called "source book" and another textbook by Saferstein.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I was talking about articles devoted to that topic specifically rather than textbooks.
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I'm sorry. To the best of my recollection, that's it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. What do those articles say about the rate at which a BA degrades?
MR. MATHESON: Rate being the amount of time it takes or--
MR. BLASIER: No. Which bands disappear first?
MR. MATHESON: Most of the articles make reference to the fact that degradation does in fact occur and that as a rule, it tends to go from the anodal or the faster bands down towards the cathodal or slower bands.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that those articles stand for the proposition that at the first stage of degradation, you lose the a-2 band?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's overbroad as to those articles.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: The articles we're been talking about.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's still overbroad.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Sensabaugh, Zajac, Yeshion and Wraxall, those four articles, would you agree that the results of their scientific tests are that the first thing to disappear is the a-2?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes that they all did scientific tests, a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: They do tend to point out or point out that the most labile or the first one to go is in fact that fastest a-2 band.
MR. BLASIER: Next slide. I'm sorry. Next slide. This is p.
MR. BLASIER: So after that first stage of degradation, your BA is going to look like the right-hand column of slide t according to the scientific literature, correct, this scientific literature?
MR. MATHESON: According to those articles, that's the degradation route that they have seen.
MR. BLASIER: Now, those articles also state, do they not, that the next stage of degradation is, you lose the b-2 band?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it assumes that there's only one degradation route, a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Talking--this is in reference to these articles?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: That's the general route that those articles reference, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. The next slide, please. This is what? Q? U.
MR. BLASIER: So you would agree, would you not, that these articles indicate that the next stage of degradation you would see if you had a BA that was degrading, you would see two bands, the b-1 and the a-1 band?
MR. MATHESON: Under the conditions that those studies were run in, yes, that is the general route of degradation.
MR. BLASIER: Now, those studies further indicate, do they not, that the next thing to go when it degrades is the a-1 band, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's the general route of that form of degradation, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please. Is it P?
MR. BLASIER: So, therefore, according to these articles, a BA that's degrading will ultimately, before the last band disappears, have the b-1 band there, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Again, according to the conditions that those samples were treated and under the conditions they are run, that is the degradation route that's referred to.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under that degradation route, you never have the pattern of a BA that's degraded that has both the b-1 and the b-2 bands without the a-1 band?
MR. MATHESON: Again, given the things I mentioned before, the conditions of the samples in those studies and the system they used for identifying it, that is true.
MR. BLASIER: And in this case, your test results showed both the b-1 and the b-2 band without the a-1 band, didn't they?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?
MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?
MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.
MR. BLASIER: I think you said also--
MR. BLASIER: You can turn that off now.
MR. BLASIER: Now, none of those articles that we--that we've talked about--the reason cited in those articles for doing these studies is to find out how a BA degrades, correct? That was one of the purposes of all of these articles?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's known that it does degrade. So, yes, the purpose of those articles potentially among other things, because they include other bits of information, is to determine one of the ways that B or an EAP will degrade.
MR. BLASIER: And all of those articles talk about, you could misinterpret a BA or b--I'm sorry--you could misinterpret a BA for a B if you made a reading based on just that b-1 band at the end, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And they all say that, therefore, you shouldn't make any reading at all if all you have is one b-1 band, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: But they say that you will not have a mistyping where you have a b-1 and a b-2 band because that would not be a degraded BA, correct?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe they all say that, no.
MR. BLASIER: Can you cite--show me one that doesn't say that?
MR. MATHESON: It's going to take me a few minutes to look. I believe they say that that are things that may happen, but--
THE COURT: Well, counsel, let's move on. We're not going to sit here and read articles.
MR. BLASIER: They do say that you can accurately read a BA and a B as long as there are two bands present. In other words, you can read a B if there are two bands present accurately, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete as to what conditions.
THE COURT: Sustained.