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. Actually when you say "they," I think you need to specify which articles.
MR. BLASIER: Do any of the articles say that you should not call a B where you have both the b-1 and b-2 bands?
MR. MATHESON: No, they don't.
MR. BLASIER: Do they all say that you shouldn't make any call at all if you only have one band?
MR. MATHESON: It's my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I wanted--you also testified that item 42 had the same appearance, the same reading as the fingernails, correct?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't believe I said they had the same reading or the same appearance.
MR. BLASIER: Can we go back to slide A?
MR. BLASIER: Now, you recognize slide a up there as being the one we were talking about with the standard?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the lane next to the standard that we used--
MR. BLASIER: In fact, why don't you go to the next slide, slide B.
MR. BLASIER: --that the lane just to the right of the standard lane is item--I'm sorry. Actually it's--to the left of the box is item 42?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Adjacent to the other standard.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you a photograph. Does this appear to be a photograph of that same electrophoretogram?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does. It appears to be an enlargement of it.
MR. BLASIER: And item 42 appears in that electrophoretogram as it does in the slide on the projector, correct?
MR. MATHESON: It was in the same location in the--it's much easier to read in the photograph.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there is--you can pick up a little bit more in the photograph than you can on the slide, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Object to the phrase "little bit more."
THE COURT: Rephrase it.
MR. BLASIER: You can see some very, very faint banding patterns under 42 that doesn't completely show up in the slide, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Maybe we can try to put this on the elmo to illustrate that.
THE COURT: I think that's one we may have to have both up and have the jury look at the blow-up.
MR. BLASIER: That's fine. Can we try this, then--
THE COURT: Yeah, try it, but I'm just trying to save some time here.
MR. BLASIER: In fact, let me--
MR. BLASIER: Okay. We can see it a little bit better this way; would you agree?
MR. MATHESON: A little bit better.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the lane for item 42 appears to have three very faint bands corresponding to b-1, a-1 and b-2, very faint?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the b-1 and b-2, I believe I can see what are banding areas, very kind of fuzzy, difficult to read. There is kind of a brightish cloud in the a-1 region.
MR. BLASIER: And the photograph of 1141-A1. Now, the very faint--can you see behind you on the screen up there? The very faint, fuzzy a-1 band is what I've got the light on, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
MR. BLASIER: Well--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Right about there (Indicating)?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is some florescence in that area. It's not even really what I would call a band.
MR. BLASIER: It's not--and that's one of the reasons that this was an inconclusive; is because those are not sufficiently well-defined bands to really make a type on, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: "those" is overbroad. Which of--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: The faint markings you see in lane 42.
MR. MATHESON: It was called inconclusive, right, because the bands that I visualized in there just were not what I would call clear-cut bands.
MR. BLASIER: And let me show you a photograph of the fingernail slide. Does that appear to be a similar photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: And this would be 1141-J1. And I would like to put both of these on at the same time.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, you see the two photographs that we have on the projector?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And the 42 again is the one that I have the laser light on now up on the big projector. Can you see that behind you?
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. The light that I'm using on the large projector up above you is the 42 lane, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And the lanes over here--
MR. BLASIER: Oh, good, we've got the arrow. Can we move the arrow over to 84-A and b? Right there.
MR. BLASIER: Those are the banding patterns from the fingernails, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And could we put an arrow over by 42 as well? Can we affix one there?
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the banding patterns for 84-A and B are much more distinctive than 42?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that's why you read 84-A and B and did not report anything other than inconclusive for 42?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the reasons, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could we print that up? The print will be 1142.
THE COURT: All right. 1142. Print of items 42 and 84.
(Deft's 1142 for id = print of items 42 and 84)
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the printout?
THE COURT: It was the two electrophoretograms of 42 and 84 side by side with arrows.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your testimony the other day about 42 was to the effect that, since 42 was preserved under similar conditions to 84-A and B, therefore, you can draw some kind of an analogy between the results of 42 and the results of 84, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I believe environmental conditions and the like was one of the things that we mentioned that is used in the total consideration of everything.
MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the--the photographs that you looked at of Nicole Brown Simpson showed one of her hands under her body and one of her hands up exposed to the air, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So those two were not under the same conditions in terms of drying or being in a pool of blood, were they?
MR. MATHESON: Not exactly the same, no.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that if you follow the scientific literature that I've shown to you and that you've reviewed, that the blood under Nicole Brown's Simpson's fingernails cannot be a BA?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assuming an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry. Could you read that or repeat that, please?
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under the scientific literature that we've reviewed here, that the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails cannot be a degraded BA?
MR. MATHESON: If you look strictly at the literature and if the conditions under the fingernails are the same as the way those studies were done in the literature and the technique used to identify it was the same as I used in my testing, then it does not follow that degradation route, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And if that's true, then it has to have come from somebody else, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Given all of the considerations that I mentioned, they would all have to be the same, and if--like I said, in fact if it did follow that same degradation route, then it would have to be a B and it would have to come from somebody else.
MR. BLASIER: Now, if you have test results that you think might be wrong or ambiguous, what are you supposed to do as a scientist?
MR. MATHESON: I would not report them if they were wrong or ambiguous.
MR. BLASIER: If you thought that the results were wrong, would you redo the test?
MR. MATHESON: Depends on what other tests were available to me.
MR. BLASIER: Now, looking at EAP--well, if you do a PGM test or a DNA test, you're not looking at the same things as you're looking at in EAP, are you?
MR. MATHESON: You're potentially looking at the same thing, but there are other factors, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Nothing that you do other than an EAP test is going to give you an EAP reading, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that's correct, yes. I mean, only an EAP test is going to give you an EAP result.
MR. BLASIER: So the only way that you could double-check that EAP test would be to do another EAP test, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, theoretically, if they knew what caused the EAP type at the DNA level, you could do it that way. I don't believe there's a standard test for that right now. So the only way to reconfirm that result would be to run the exact same test again.
MR. BLASIER: These fingernail scrapings were sent back to you by the Department of Justice for the purposes of doing another EAP test, weren't they?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: At some point, you sent them to DOJ and they sent them back, didn't they?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: What was the purpose for them sending it back?
MR. MATHESON: Because it's our evidence. The evidence belongs back here when they're done completing it so it could become part of the rest of the case.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider doing a retest of those fingernail scrapings, an EAP test, to see whether your original results were wrong?
MR. MATHESON: Did I consider it?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: I considered it, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You wanted to do it, didn't you?
MR. MATHESON: I felt that there was other tests that could give more information. I did not want to consume any more of the sample just to repeat the exact same thing again.
MR. BLASIER: So you've done no retesting to demonstrate whether this EAP is anything other than a B or someone other than Mr. Simpson, correct?
MR. MATHESON: There has never been any other testing I--excuse me. I have not repeated or done any other EAP testing, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our recess for the morning. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 o'clock.
(At 12:00 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1995 1:00 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Darden, are you going to present the--
MR. DARDEN: Well, it is still a few seconds to one o'clock, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you had some comment or concern regarding discovery matters.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. On the photographs that counsel used today of the blood vial, I do not believe that we were provided those in discovery. We have another set of Defense photographs of the blood vial that we do have. Mr. Scheck tells me that he thinks that it is possible that the photographs that they use could be People's photographs. I did not have an opportunity over the noon hour to verify that, so at this time I can't be a hundred percent sure that he is wrong. But this is a possible discovery violation. I'm just not in a position at this point to say with certainty.
THE COURT: Well, given Mr. Matheson's testimony that he recognized it and testified to what it was, unless there is some other materiality to it, I am not going to entertain any further comment on it then until you tell me it is relevant. All right. Let's have the jury.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gregory Matheson, The witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand now undergoing redirect examination. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Matheson. You are reminded you are still under oath. Mr. Goldberg, you may commence your redirect examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Hello.
MR. GOLDBERG: Ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I wanted to start out by asking you more about this EAP issue and I know we have discussed it at some length. You were asked about some literature during cross-examination. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And specifically you were asked about four articles that you were shown on the witness stand that you read prior to your testimony in Court?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said at one point that those were the only articles that you considered prior to testifying about this EAP issue for your testimony in this proceeding?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you alluded to some book that you looked at?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, why on cross-examination didn't you tell the Defense about what was in this book?
MR. MATHESON: I wasn't asked about it. I was limited to the articles.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean by the questioning?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I would like to get into that in a little while, but first let's take a look at some of these articles that were referred to. Mr. Matheson, first on the Wraxall and Emes article--
THE COURT: How do you spell those?
MR. GOLDBERG: W-r-a-x-a-l-l, Emes, e-m-e-s.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is this one of the articles, sir, that you considered prior to your testimony?
MR. MATHESON: It is one of the ones I read, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did this article actually contain a study that was done involving a number of samples to determine how it degrades, how the EAP marker degrades?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on these stains that were studied in this particular article, were these stains in a wet condition or in a dry laboratory condition?
MR. MATHESON: I believe they were dry.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, the stains at the scene in this case, item 42, if we were to assume hypothetically that when Mr. Fung saw that he described it as being tacky when he arrived there at sometime after 10:15, would that distinguish the blood that we are talking about in our case from the type of blood that was studied in the Wraxall article?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That misstates the testimony if he is talking about fingernails.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. BLASIER: If he is talking about the fingernails.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: If the blood was tacky or damp, then that would be a different set of conditions.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you looked at the bindles on one of the fingernail scrapings in this case, there was some evidence that it was tacky even when it was collected; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: There was what appeared to be smearing on it that would indicate that it was still damp.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, why is this distinction between damp and dry stains in a laboratory condition--let me ask it another way. Why is a distinction between damp stains at a crime scene as opposed to dry stains in a laboratory setting significant?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is different conditions.
MR. GOLDBERG: But what is significant forensically about the different conditions in terms of degradation?
MR. MATHESON: Well, damp conditions, like I mentioned before, hastens certain types of degradation. A dried sample or even a damp sample for that case that is subjected to heat is a different type of environmental situation and potentially could create a different type of result.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the Wraxall and Emes article--Wraxall and Emes article, did you, in interpreting that article, take this as a cautionary type statement with respect to the EAP marker?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry, I don't--
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take this as a statement to a forensic analyst to use caution with the EAP marker in terms of typing it?
MR. MATHESON: "this" meaning the whole article?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: The crux of that and many of the other articles is just an indication that the EAP has a problem with degradation and you need to be careful about how it is interpreted.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that how you interpreted the article overall?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is it correct that with respect to these dried laboratory stains that they were talking about in Wraxall and Emes they did identify a particular degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to direct your attention back to our EAP board so maybe we can understand this.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: While we are getting that maybe you can describe for us verbally what this degradation route was that was discussed both during cross-examination and also in Wraxall?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding of it is similar to what was discussed before, that under those conditions in identifying the samples the way they are, you know, the process of identifying the types, the degradation route showed the progressive loss of the faster bands or the anodal bands so that you lose first an a2, b2, a1 and then eventually the b1.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's take this step-by-step. You used the term "anodal." What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: That is an electrical term that has reference to the positive side as opposed to the negative side, which is cathodal.
MR. GOLDBERG: Looking at our EAP phenotype Board, the block diagrams that we used, can you tell us which is the anodal side of the diagram?
MR. MATHESON: Looking at the diagram, the anodal is the plus sign on the left and the cathodal is on the right where the negative is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't we take off the little magnetic strips.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So with respect to the BA phenotype, can you describe for us the degradation route that was discussed by Wraxall and Emes with respect to dried laboratory stains that were aged?
MR. MATHESON: The degradation route, like previously described on cross--
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can use a pointer or something.
THE COURT: All right. We are referring to People's exhibit 217?
MR. GOLDBERG: I believe so. Let me double-check.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: 217.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: The degradation route, as was previously described but using this chart now to chart it, would mean that you would have a loss of the a band, which is indicated above the farthest to the left, then the B band, next one to the right of it, then the other a band, second band from the right, and then finally what has been marked as the C band.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is the degradation route that was described in this Wraxall and Emes?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, under the conditions that they had those samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in your experience as a serologist, and also based upon your reading of the literature, is that the only degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And generally speaking, maybe this is a slight oversimplification, you are saying this particular degradation route would be from the positive side to the negative side of the block diagram that we have?
MR. MATHESON: The one I described earlier, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it is not the only one?
MR. MATHESON: No.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm wondering if I might be able to use the Defense exhibit on their block diagram showing the EAP degradation route.
THE COURT: Which item was that?
MR. GOLDBERG: We don't have it in our system.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, do you have that available?
MR. HARRIS: I'm not sure which one.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Do you know which number and letter you want?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. BLASIER: I think we can find it, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Have we printed those out yet, Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: They are printing now.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. While we are waiting on that, Mr. Goldberg, do you have any other matters?
MR. GOLDBERG: It was 1141 a through z.
THE COURT: I think about l is what you are looking for, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That sounds like it might be about right.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have anything else that you can ask Mr. Matheson while we are waiting?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I appreciate your cooperation with that. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Harris, too.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, you were also asked about an article by the name of--by the authors of Zajac, Z-A-J-A-C, Grunbaum, G-R-U-N-B-A-U-M, and Crim, C-R-I-M; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this an article that came out after the one that we just discussed, the Wraxall and Emes article?
MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this the article that previously you testified said that: "inherent characteristics of the EAP system give rise to the possibility of very serious errors in phenotyping on other than fresh blood, especially if the history of the sample is not fully known"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular article on page 615--
THE COURT: This is Zajac?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. GOLDBERG: --did they make reference to the Wraxall and Emes article that you were asked about on cross-examination that we just discussed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did they distinguish the Wraxall and Emes article as dealing with a different situation from the situation that they were discussing in their article?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you read for us what they said in order to distinguish Wraxall and Emes from their article?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. In referencing the Wraxall and Emes article they followed that up with stating: "apparently the blood stains they used were prepared under laboratory conditions and the history and drying and preservation were well-known."
MR. GOLDBERG: And in Grunbaum were they trying to give an idea as to what would happen to wet samples that were not prepared under laboratory conditions?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Leading.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, in the article what did they say? What kind of stains were they dealing with here?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The comment they made is that: "the preparation of their blood samples were done in such a way to simulate the diverse conditions which may take place in actual case work submitted to a crime lab."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the--their article, did they identify the same degradation route that you just described that was discussed in the Wraxall and Emes?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it was specifically delineated there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did they say--how did they characterize--can you read for us how they characterized the problems of misidentification that occurred in this particular study with the samples that they created?
MR. MATHESON: It states: "the problem with misidentification of the samples in this study was not due to weak or indistinct band patterns, rather, discreet bands were present and readable but they had been altered to indicate erroneous phenotypes."
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And how did you interpret that, Mr. Matheson?
MR. MATHESON: Well, again, that the system has degradation problems and that multiple bands can be read still and misinterpreted.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean even if you have discreet band patterns such as two B bands?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that indicates that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Could I see 1141-G, Mr. Harris? Is that possible? And then I want to see h and i.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I want to go back to the Wraxall and Emes article and the degradation route that they discussed. What does this represent when we are looking at the BA block diagram?
MR. MATHESON: It represents a general location of the bands of a type BA.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And the B block diagram?
MR. MATHESON: It also represents the general location of the bands of a type B though in neither case does it give any sort of indication of the intensity differences.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then let's see--let's see. This is H. Can we see u? When you said that they don't give an indication of the intensity differences, you mean what?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that is one of the ways of determining the types, is particularly between a B and a C, is how intense certain bands are, and these are just all being blocked as approximately the same size, as opposed to the People's chart on EAP which does define the different intensities by the different sizes of the bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you tell us what we are looking at here in terms of the degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: This is consistent with the degradation route described in the Wraxall article.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is what?
MR. MATHESON: That you lose the bands from the anodal side or the positive side towards the cathodal side or the negative side, the low side.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you orient this just verbally in relationship to the People's chart, the six EAP diagrams on the block diagram just to show us how the two would interrelate?
MR. MATHESON: If you--excuse me. If you were to turn the chart that is being projected up ninety degrees to the left so that the arrow would indicate the origin or the cathodic side.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can we see the next--it would be this--on the list, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now what does this show?
MR. MATHESON: It is the final step in the degradation route that is described in the Wraxall article where what originally started out as a BA, the only thing that is left is the b1 band.
MR. GOLDBERG: But are you saying that this degradation route that you were asked about is not the only one that you have seen or that is in the literature?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. This is 1141. Is this v? V, as in victor. The previous one was 1141-U.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, the--another one of the articles, the three articles that you were asked about, was the Yeshion--excuse me. Let me ask you about the Sensabaugh article first. Did the Sensabaugh article contain a broad base study of the phenomena of EAP disintegration or were they looking at only one stain when they discussed this degradation route, the one that we just saw on the Defense?
MR. MATHESON: It appears by reading that article that when they are referencing that degradation route that has been described in the Wraxall article that just two bloodstains were used, one of a type B and one of a type BA.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And then finally the Yeshion article that was referenced. Did the Yeshion article contain what purported to be a study of the phenomena of BA disintegration to B?
MR. MATHESON: No, it did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: It was a technical note regarding the degradation of a B to a CB. I don't know if it then carried on to a C, but the a allele was not mentioned.
MR. GOLDBERG: So Yeshion was not actually studying--did not purport to be studying the BA to B phenomenon to say--
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: She was studying other EAP issues with respect to degradation?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know about studying. She was referencing other issues, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to all four of the articles that we have mentioned so far, the Wraxall and Emes, the Grunbaum and Zajac, the Sensabaugh and the Yeshion article, considered together did you take those articles as some sort of a cautionary statement to the forensic analyst with respect to the EAP system?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: So how?
MR. MATHESON: And that is having--every one of them indicates that the EAP enzyme, unlike the other ones, does in fact degrade and that a degradation can lead to mistyping so you have to be careful about how you interpret EAP results.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were asked about the Wraxall and Emes--well, let me ask you another question first. This book that you alluded to during your direct examination, what was the book?
MR. MATHESON: It is the forensic science handbook by Richard Saferstein.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was there a particular portion of that book that you referenced in particular in forming the opinions that you expressed on the witness stand with respect to the BA to B phenomena?
MR. MATHESON: It enforced my knowledge of that, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us which portion you looked at?
MR. MATHESON: It was a section that was written by Dr. Sensabaugh.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can give us a page number because I believe counsel may have a copy of that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is chapter 8 that starts on page 338. The area that we are referencing, I believe the paragraph starts on 369, and concludes on 370.
THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: If I may look for a minute.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did Wraxall--did Mr. Sensabaugh, in this chapter that he authored, mention the Wraxall and Emes or what we have discussed as being the Wraxall and Emes degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did he say that that was the only degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what he said?
MR. MATHESON: Well, he makes reference to the stabilities of the isoenzymes, the different types. One quote here is that: "the a isoenzymes are the least stable and the c isoenzymes the most stable, thus one might expect the a bands in BA and ca types to be lost before the B or c bands are lost and this in fact has been observed."
MR. GOLDBERG: And does he say--
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object unless the rest of that paragraph is read.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know what the legal basis of the objection is.
THE COURT: I think it is 256.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: 256, I believe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, can you read the rest of the paragraph?
MR. MATHESON: I will be happy to.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
MR. MATHESON: "in typing aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band, the anodal B band, may be apparent and the temptation would be to type the sample as a B to avoid error of this sort. Empirical rules for typing interpretation need to be invoked since it has been observed that in aged BA bloodstains the slow B band is generally lost before the fast a band. The controlling rule is to withhold judgment on a putative B type until both B bands are apparent. If the sample is in fact a BA type, the major a band should be apparent by that time."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did Mr. Sensabaugh identify any particular degradation route that is different from the Wraxall and Emes degradation route?
MR. MATHESON: I feel that this article or this--excuse me--this paragraph actually mentions a couple of different routes or discrepancies between the possible ways the degradation can occur.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: How so? What other degradation route is identified there?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in one sentence he states that: "in type aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band or the anodal B band," this is the anodal or the one closest to the anode side, as opposed to this band, which is the cathodal or the closest to the origin, "may be apparent." he is saying that at some point it is possible that only the major bands or the brightest band might be present.
MR. GOLDBERG: How is that different from the Wraxall and Emes?
MR. MATHESON: In their study they saw the degradation route so that the cathodal band was the last one that was apparent.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just cover up the a bands for a moment so that we can make them understanding. On the BA chart forward I have just put the covers back over on the a band on the BA phenotype.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So according to the Wraxall and Emes study, they are saying that which band would remain after the sample had degraded?
MR. MATHESON: The most cathodal one or the one closest to the origin.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the one that is on the right side of this diagram?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this portion that you just read to us that Sensabaugh is saying which?
MR. MATHESON: In that one portion there he makes reference to what he calls the major B band--excuse me--or the cathodal B band or--excuse me--the anodal B band may be apparent.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does he say that these degradation routes, that it always occurs in either of these two ways?
MR. MATHESON: I didn't read that in there, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does he say that--that these are general ways that they happen, that this is how it generally happens?
MR. MATHESON: There is the term "generally used," yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in interpreting that, did you, as a forensic analyst, take that to mean that this is the only path, degradation path, that this marker will take, or that this is one of the degradation paths that this marker will take?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: How did you take that term, that this generally, generally take these two paths?
MR. MATHESON: On reading that paragraph and the discrepancies between the different types, it indicates to me that there may be more than one way that degradation can occur.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take the totality of the articles and the book that you just referenced, and also the source book that I think you referenced earlier in your cross-examination, as providing some sort of cautionary statement to the forensic analyst when trying to type a B and distinguishing it from a BA?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was that?
MR. MATHESON: Again, in general, that this is an enzyme that has degradation problems and you just have to be careful about the interpretation of the results.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did anything that you read in these articles, Mr. Matheson, cause you to change the statement that you made initially on your analyzed evidence report that you could not exclude the possibility with respect to the fingernail scrapings it was a BA that degraded into a B?
MR. MATHESON: No, it did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did anything that was brought up during cross-examination by the Defense cause you to change the opinion that you have offered on direct that probably the samples underneath the fingernails were a BA that degraded to appear to be a B?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure about--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was your opinion, your bottom line opinion, when you considered all of the facts of this case as you are aware of them, including the photographs of where the victim's body was, the pool of blood, item no. 42, and the other tests that you did? What was your opinion as to the fingernail scrapings?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the result does not change. I did see a B, but in considering absolutely everything, I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, did anything that was brought up during cross-examination cause you to change that opinion or reevaluate that opinion?
MR. MATHESON: No, it did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, with respect to resolving this issue, is it possible to look at a control study from the scene?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know if it totally resolves it, but it does lend credence to the possibility that you have degradation occurring.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean, using the control study?
MR. MATHESON: If--if you are typing or if you test another blood sample that is of a known source or that you believe to be of a known source from the scene and it shows a similar type of degradation that you have seen in the past and experienced and that that possibility exists in your sample, then I believe it is important to take that into consideration.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this idea of looking at a control study, such as a pool of blood underneath the victim, something that was reflected in science--in forensic science literature, that you considered prior to your testimony here?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I had that opinion prior to this; however, I have read an article that enforces my opinion about that.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, here. I had it right in my hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Specifically, sir, did you look at an article by Bruce Budowle and Robert Allen entitled "electrophoresis reliability, the contaminant issue"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I direct your attention to page 1546.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you have this article?
MR. BLASIER: I don't.
MR. GOLDBERG: We cited this in one of our papers, your Honor. (Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir is this dealing with the EAP issue, per say, or is this dealing more broadly with various contaminant issues in electrophoresis and problem resolving in electrophoresis?
MR. MATHESON: It is dealing with electrophoresis reliability in general, not just with the EAP.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us--can you read for us the portion of the Budowle article that suggests looking at a control study from the scene and trying to provide more information about what is happening at the scene?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Portion that I have bracketed off?
MR. MATHESON: It starts with: "furthermore, the competent and experienced forensic scientists do not work in a vacuum. It should be stressed that the analyst gathers as much information as possible regarding the case," then in parenthesis, "and potential influence such as contaminant" close paren, "to evaluate properly the data obtained from evidentiary material. More importantly, in reality, an ideal control study is naturally provided to forensic scientists. This is the electrophoretic analysis of victim's blood on victim's clothing and other substrata. The blood shed by a victim onto his or her own clothing and surrounding substrata is exposed to the same myriad of environmental insults as other questioned stains submitted to the laboratory for electrophoretic analysis. The accuracy of electrophoretic typing of the questioned sample can be independently verified with the victim's whole blood."
MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, what was your interpretation of that in terms of using a control study to resolve issues as to what is happening in a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that confirmed a policy that we have had as far as collecting a known blood sample from the scene from each of the victims and that information from that can be used to consider information derived from other samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, is that why in expressing certain opinions in Court on direct examination regarding this EAP issue, you considered test results on the pool of blood underneath Nicole Brown, item 42?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see the serology results board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, when you considered those test results on 42, were those test results inconclusive?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they were.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you reporting those test results--let me wait until we put the board up. Maybe it will make it a little easier.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That is People's 202.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Directing your attention to the item that says 42, "blood under Nicole Brown," under the EAP column it says, "inconclusive B very weak"; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you reporting this inconclusive result for the purposes of suggesting that it was correct, in other words, that the blood was in fact a type B blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I did not report a type at all for that. My report reflects inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, my terminology was wrong. When you were testifying about this result, were you testifying about it for the purposes of suggesting that the inconclusive B was--was a direct result in the sense that the blood really was a type B?
MR. MATHESON: No, I was not.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what was your purpose in considering this and testifying about this and giving your explanations about the EAP results under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The inconclusive, like I mentioned, no activity would be you are not seeing anything on the gel. A result that is reported is a definitive result, it is what you are seeing occurring on that gel. An inconclusive falls somewhere in between. It is a pretty broad range. It could be just almost possible to call but you are not quite sure, there is something about it, or it could be something that is very vague, just kind of a blurry occurrence. In this case I observed what I thought might be a B, it wasn't good enough to call. I am not going to say for a fact that it is a B, but it occurred in an area and on a sample that we are assuming to be from a particular person and thus of a particular type. We know her for a fact to be a type BA and the fact that this is an inconclusive B shows that there is something going on with this blood and with the sample and that the results should be interpreted carefully.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark two more exhibits and they are similar to--in fact, just smaller versions of the ones that the Defense marked.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And People's next in order 224.
THE COURT: 224.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can I mark them as 224-A and 224-B?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And a is what appears to be an electrophoretogram and has the numbers 1304.
(Peo's 224-A for id = electrophoretogram)
(Peo's 224-B for id = electrophoretogram)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Blasier, you are familiar with both of these?
MR. BLASIER: I am, but I would like to just briefly look at them.
MR. GOLDBERG: And 224-B is 13--excuse me--7310.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--
THE COURT: Would you show those to Mr. Blasier real quick.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you were talking about item no. 42 just a few moments ago, what is the purpose of collecting that item again?
THE COURT: I think we've asked this a couple times.
MR. BLASIER: Asked and answered.
MR. GOLDBERG: So sir, when you were saying that you were assuming that that is the victim's blood, that is based on what?
MR. MATHESON: The location from where it was collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that why this type of sample is collected?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I would now like to show you People's 224-A and 224-B. Showing you 224-A first, what is that?
MR. MATHESON: 224-A is a copy of a photograph of my electrophoresis run, no. 7309, which contains, among other items, the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and 84-B.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And 224-B is?
MR. MATHESON: 224-B is another photograph of a photograph of electrophoresis run no. 7310 which includes, among other things, the results of item no. 42.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on 224-B for identification, I would like to perhaps if I could put it on the elmo and then maybe pass it around, but I would like the witness to write something on it first.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could you identify for us, just by writing on the bottom of the photograph, where 42 is?
MR. MATHESON: It is in position 4 and putting an arrow up from the bottom above the number "42."
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, putting 224-B on the elmo.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see that part of the photograph that has the number on it?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: We need to see the white part at the bottom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So have you written in where 42 is?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is one of the reasons that you considered this, that logically a pool of the victim's blood should contain the victim's blood?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So without testing it, would have you have expected this to look like a BA?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I would have.
MR. GOLDBERG: But when you tested it, what did it look like?
MR. MATHESON: It gave a weak result that eventually ended up being called inconclusive, but I saw the two B bands very, very lightly, kind of fuzzy clouds in the areas where you would expect to see them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just with directing the arrows printout where those are.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. You need to go up, move the arrow to the left, now to the right. It can lay right on top of that other band and that is pointing right into the lower B band. That is fine. Right there, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Just put another arrow pointing to the upper B band.
MR. MATHESON: If you go directly above the arrow that was previously placed by two bands, go up, up, up, down a little bit, right about in there, (Indicating), is the other B band.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know it is hard to see on the elmo, Mr. Matheson, but when you look at this plate, do you see any distinct band pattern in either of the two a regions?
MR. MATHESON: For that item?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: But do you see a band pattern in the two B regions?
MR. MATHESON: I see something that has kind of a band-like appearance. It is not a good band. If it was, I would have had called it.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, assuming this is in fact a BA, using the Wraxall and Emes degradation route, if we assume that were the only degradation route, would you expect to see this?
MR. MATHESON: No, I would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because if this is in fact a BA, as you are assuming, then I would expect to still see that lower a band in addition to the two B bands.
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. This mischaracterizes this exhibit. I see a band there.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson--by the way, how many years do you have of experience in total looking at these banding patterns?
MR. MATHESON: Approximately twelve years.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you are saying that there are only two distinct--I'm sorry. You didn't see two bands but only two band-like patterns on this object.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Mischaracterizes his testimony. He said it was not a band.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: There are only two patterns; is that correct, in that lane?
MR. MATHESON: I'm seeing what appears to be two very weak band-like appearances in those areas. This is a very weak sample, difficult to read.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can we--can we print this out as People's 224--
THE COURT: C.
MR. GOLDBERG: --C.
(Peo's 224-C for id = photograph)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, with the Court's permission could we show this to the jury, because the resolution on our elmo isn't that great?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And just before I show them, Mr. Matheson, so that the--so that we know what we are looking for, you wrote a 42 on the lane that represents 42; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Pointing up? And the--well, maybe we can also pass around the printout, too, so that they can just compare.
THE COURT: May I see that, please?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I object to the printout being passed around. I have no objection to the photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I just think the printout might be helpful in identifying where to look.
MR. BLASIER: I disagree.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Still waiting for the printout, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps with the Court's permission, I might be able to ask a couple questions.
THE COURT: Please do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, thank you.
THE COURT: I would like to finish with Mr. Matheson today, if we could.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's next in order 225 and I may also be marking a 224-D later on, but as 225, a document that says "electrophoresis work sheet."
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you have a copy of this?
MR. GOLDBERG: Contains 41, 42--it is l-387.
MR. BLASIER: I do.
THE COURT: All right.
(Peo's 225 for id = electrophoresis work sheet)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, while he we are waiting for the printout, can you just tell us what l-387 is?
MR. MATHESON: L-387 is a photocopy that actually is slightly crooked, cuts off part of the left-hand column of one of my electrophoresis work sheets that corresponds to photo no. 7310.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on this particular work sheet you called item no. 84, the fingernails, as a B what?
MR. MATHESON: This work sheet does not have 84 on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't have 84. Does that have 42 on it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was 42 called as?
MR. MATHESON: A B question mark inc for inconclusive. The second reading on that was a na for no activity.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I just want to perhaps put this on the elmo one more time, if I may, before I give it to the jury. This is 224-B. I'm not going to mark on it or make a printout.
THE COURT: Do we have to see it again?
MR. GOLDBERG: I want to make sure everyone knows where to look.
THE COURT: I think the arrow there is apparent in the lane.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, between the--in the arrow--the arrow is pointing to an area that I guess on the photograph would be about a quarter to a half of an inch above it that is sort of a bright band. Where is the band that we are looking for in relationship to that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is in that same--
MR. BLASIER: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Band.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm referring to the--
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you see these very, very bright hash marks that go all the way across the bottom part of the photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there is one of those hash marks--there is an arrow that has no. 42 and the arrow is pointing to one of the hash marks?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Where in relationship to that hash mark is the lane that constitutes 42?
MR. MATHESON: 42 is directly above the arrow. It is a lane about three eights of an inch wide directly above the arrow.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I'm sure hash mark probably wasn't the scientifically correct term, but--
(The exhibits were passed amongst the jury.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, could we approach for one moment off the record while the jury is looking at this?
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you want me to continue? Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: No, no.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect that from Deputy Long, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, I want to show you 224-A for identification. And does that--do you still have that--does that have item no. 42--excuse me--item no. 84 in it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Using the same pen, can you write arrows for 84-A and 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm writing an a--two arrows down from the two columns that have 84-A and 84-B and then marking 84-A under one of the arrows and just B under the other one because of lack of space.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, on that are there any other results that you got that appear to contain a B like pattern?
MR. MATHESON: There are actually a couple others that I called B inconclusive, and I believe there is one--no, that is it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there a 117 on there?
MR. MATHESON: One of the lanes is the results of item 117, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you just point that out for us with the arrow, in other words, and write "117."
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm writing again an arrow pointing up into the lane that expresses the results or the data obtained from item no. 117.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was 117 identified as being one of the rear gate stains from the Bundy location?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you got a B like pattern on that?
MR. MATHESON: I called it a B question mark inconclusive, yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, why do the lanes that contain 84-A and B look so messy to a lay person?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are times in electrophoresis where when you are doing a run, there is something that blocks or hinders the electrical flow through it, through the gel from one side to another and causes the bands not to migrate as evenly as they should.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to 84-A and B, are there any hazy areas on this that do not, in your opinion, constitute a distinct band pattern?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is general haziness in a lot of the areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: And maybe using the marker, can you identify some of the haziness for us that in your opinion does not constitute a distinct band pattern? In other words, an a like band?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in general there is a haziness that shows up--we are talking about 84-A and B right now?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: That does show up or appear to exist between the two B bands. It is a general florescence or luminescence occurring there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Of which one, 84-A or 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as I see it here, both of them. There just appears to be a general lightening of that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you direct the arrow down to the location that you are referring to.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. If you move the arrow to the left, farther, and down, down, right in there, (Indicating). In general that is true on both items.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you mean on 84-B1 as well?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you direct the arrow to the area on the 84-B side--can you get the arrow--
MR. MATHESON: There we go.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant, that this has some foundation or any scientific meaning.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Move the arrow to the right and down a little bit. In that general area there you can see there is a light brightening of that area, not a band, but something is occurring in that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: But in your view does that have any forensic significance?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is not anything that I would call even close to a band, so no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that why it does--it is helpful to have some experience in looking at these kind of things, as opposed to just being a lay person, to try to distinguish between something that is there but doesn't have any significance and something that is there and does?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, does your experience as a serologist help you to distinguish between something that appears that does not have significance, when looking at EAP, as opposed to something that does?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how so?
MR. MATHESON: After having seen many of these samples, you get the experience on how to read them.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in your opinion these highlighted areas, not highlighted, but the areas with the arrows pointing to them, you would not conclude are a bands; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: I don't see what I feel are bands in that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, directing your attention to 117--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: How many bands on 84-A do you see?
MR. MATHESON: We are talking about 84-A now, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: 84-A?
MR. MATHESON: I see what appears to be two bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we use a different color arrow to demarcate those two bands?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson--
MR. MATHESON: Move it down, please. That is one of the band there, (Indicating). It is kind of curved, but that is the band. Down further. Down, down, down. Right about there, (Indicating), roughly the middle left side of that band as it curves down.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you now mark for us using also green arrows, but facing the other way, the bands that you see on 84-B?
MR. MATHESON: Move it down. Over to the left a little bit, a little bit further. Right there, (Indicating). That is one of the bands. And down further. Down, down. Go to the left and right down inside. That mush is another--move it up just a little bit. There, (Indicating), that is the location of the other band.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's turn our attention to 117. If we can just keep this all and then print it out later to get it all in one shot. Just for the record, Mr. Matheson, there are two yellow arrows. Do those yellow arrows signify what you are saying are the B bands in the 84-A lane?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the red arrow signifies some haze that you consider to be insignificant?
MR. MATHESON: That I don't consider to be a band, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the 84-B lane, the green arrows signify the B bands in that lane?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the blue arrow signifies what?
MR. MATHESON: The hazy area in between it.
MR. GOLDBERG: That you do not attribute forensic significance to?
MR. MATHESON: That I'm not seeing a band, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, turning our attention to 117.
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to have to object on relevance grounds if this was part of the control study.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Turning your attention to 117, does that also have a B like pattern, according to your testimony; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I called it a B inconclusive.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: Both bands are present.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, outside the scope of direct on 117. It was never mentioned.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Matheson, in your experience in other cases have you seen instances where a known BA sample had degraded in such a way as to appear to be a B with both B bands present?
MR. MATHESON: I believe I have, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you seen situations like that occurring in your opinion at this particular crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Only in the pool of blood 42 or elsewhere at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Taking into account other information elsewhere.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is 117 one of the other locations where you believe that you have seen a B like pattern?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, in your opinion--is your opinion as to the fingernail scrapings that you have offered both on direct and cross, take into account anything else at the crime scene other than the items that you testified to specifically on direct and cross-examination?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that question.
MR. MATHESON: There is one other sample that I did take into consideration, not necessarily to make the call of the B, but to reinforce my feeling that it may have at one time been a BA and that this phenomena does in fact exist.
MR. GOLDBERG: And which one was that?
MR. MATHESON: Item no. 117.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, beyond the scope. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Sustained. We are not going to go into 117.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's move on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we print out a copy of this document?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, beyond the scope. I object to anything with 117 on it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: The jury is instructed on this exhibit to just disregard the 117 lane, but rather than go back and remark the whole thing, let's print it out. All right. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
THE COURT: We can slice that part off.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Is that it?
MR. GOLDBERG: On this.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I can proceed with a few more questions and wrap up the EAP issue and then I would like to show these photograph and the printout to the jury. The photo I would like to mark as 224--I mean the printout as 224-D.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would request that the printout be cut off on the end rather than scribbled on.
THE COURT: We will do that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to item 85, we won't show the electrophoresis plate on that. I'm not sure that it is worth the time. But on 85-A and B, on our board you said that the EAP type was inconclusive BA?
MR. MATHESON: That is how it is on the board, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the B band--excuse me--a bands on that sample, what did you see?
MR. MATHESON: That they were weaker than I would expect for an expected BA result.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was what you were seeing consistent with the Wraxall and Emes article in terms of the degradation path for the laboratory stains in that article?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: What I was seeing, assuming that was degradation, did not appear to be consistent with that route.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Because the two B bands were quite bright and the two a bands were fairly weak.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, with respect to this issue of EAP, what steps did you take in order to try to resolve it further after this testing was performed?
MR. MATHESON: I recommended that those items be submitted for DNA testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And it was suggested that when these came back from the Department of Justice it was for the purposes of EAP testing; is that true?
MR. MATHESON: That is something that was mentioned on cross, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But I mean is it true that that is the purpose for which they were returned to your laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: No. Like I testified, they were just returning to become a part of the rest of the case. It is our evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was everything from DOJ that was sent to them eventually returned to your laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Most everything. At this point I'm not sure if we have absolutely everything back in our laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why not do another EAP test?
MR. MATHESON: At this point I didn't feel it was necessary.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, why would you decide to submit it for DNA testing but not to perform another EAP test?
MR. MATHESON: Well, initially I didn't want to use up any more sample to run additional test.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would an additional EAP test provide you with more information?
MR. MATHESON: I would expect it to give me the same result as it did the first time.
MR. GOLDBERG: What a genetic rest--well, why would you expect it to give you the same result as it did the first time?
MR. MATHESON: Because the result is what I obtained from the sample. If I run it once or a hundred times, I would expect to see the same thing from that sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: So it doesn't get undegraded because just you run it another time?
MR. MATHESON: Assuming, yes, degraded, yes, is would just not go undegraded.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there a way, according to the scientific literature, to undegrade a sample to bring out a degraded band?
MR. MATHESON: It depends on what we are calling degraded. There are some situations where you get a type of degradation. You add, it is called a reducing agent to it, and it can correct some of the problems.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that could be done--I don't know if this is a correct term--to undegrade bands if there are a bands in our samples here, 84-A and B?
MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you have testified that, generally speaking, when you are doing these tests, you try to conserve samples for future testing; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: All types of tests, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that so that it will be available for anyone, either the Defense or Prosecution, that wants to do more testing on an item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. You inventory and not use any more sample than necessary.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you want to conserve any remaining sample from 85-A and 85-B rather than using it on another EAP test?
THE COURT: Isn't this sort of like the same question turned about the fifth way around?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know.
THE COURT: I think so.
THE COURT: The jury loved the undegraded question.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: With the Court's permission I would like to--
THE COURT: We need to edit that, the 117 article.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Does the Court have any scissors?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, do you want to hand those two items to juror no. 1, please.
(The exhibits were passed amongst the jury.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, we will take a break at 2:30.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: While we are waiting, let me see counsel at the side bar.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, why don't you use the opportunity to get your other exhibits ready for the next segment.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear what the Court said.
THE COURT: Why don't you use the opportunity to get your exhibits ready for the next segment. I know. I'm just asking Mr. Goldberg to make use of the time. I'm not making myself very clear today. It is almost Friday.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, while we are waiting, can counsel and I approach off the record about a scheduling matter?
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. And Mr. Goldberg, did you collect those two items? All right. Miss Martinez indicates yes. All right. Let's proceed. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, are you aware that the items 84-A and 84-B were in fact sent out for DNA testing and came back with a result consistent with Nicole Brown?
MR. MATHESON: It is my understanding, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is hearsay.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
THE COURT: Well, I assume we will get to that later.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, you were asked about some questions regarding security at the Scientific Investigations Division, and specifically the evidence processing unit. Now, is the evidence processing unit where evidence is brought when someone is coming back from the scene of a crime and you have biological evidence that needs to be dried?
MR. MATHESON: Actually, the evidence processing room--room is the room in the laboratory where all evidence is brought back do when it is collected in the field.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have--is that where you would dry biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to all of the cases where LAPD has collected biological evidence through the crime lab, is that the room that is used?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked about a cabinet in that room that is used for drying purposes. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: In that cabinet there are some chemicals that are stored?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are the chemicals stored in that cabinet--can they--do they come into contact with the items that are placed in the cabinet for drying?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if they did, what would happen?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The type of reagents that you store?
MR. MATHESON: The reagents that are stored in there are kits that are prepared to do blood testing in the field and if for some reason they were to come in contact with any of the evidence samples, it would degrade the sample so that you would not be able to get a typing result.
MR. GOLDBERG: It would not result in the type of the sample changing from one type to another or changing from someone's blood into someone else's blood?
MR. MATHESON: No, it would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the photo tour board, the front door that is depicted in the outdoor photograph, it is photograph no. 30 on the right-hand side. You say anyone during working hours can go through that door?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. It is kept unlocked.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about during hours when the laboratory is closed?
MR. MATHESON: It is locked.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can people get through--anyone get through that door?
MR. MATHESON: No. Only people that have the access card.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who are they?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that would be the criminalists, the couriers that I mentioned, the personnel that work there, and there are certain ones of those that are limited in their access, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day, but most of the personnel that work there have access.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to getting through the card key area into the corridor, the photo that says "entry corridor," on this exhibit, the photograph that is two down from the top on the right-hand side and in the left column, who can get into that area?
MR. MATHESON: Talking about the door from the crime lab lobby into the hallway?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: Again, it would have to be people that have access cards that have been approved to go through this door at a particular time of day. All the employees of that location can do that during normal working hours. After normal working hours it is more limited to the criminalists and the couriers and--unless under special circumstances we could occasionally change the access for like administrative staff, the secretaries.
MR. GOLDBERG: But ordinary detectives or police officers, do they have access to the corridor area?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the evidence processing room, does everyone who has access to the corridor areas of the lab also have access to the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: No, they don't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Who has access to the corridors that does not have access to the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: That would be our clerical staff. We have a store keeper that does our ordering and maintenance of the stock room. I don't believe our evidence control unit personnel do. I would have to check that for sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that--you were asked about janitors. Do they have access to the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do they ever go into the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: Occasionally, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Under what conditions?
MR. MATHESON: They would knock on the door and if somebody is inside, that person would allow them into either sweep or mop the floors and empty the trash cans.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the janitors are then monitored by one of the people that has access, such as a criminalist or one of your student workers?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, we are going to have to take our break at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. We will take a recess for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Matheson, you can step down. All right. 15.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right, counsel. Let's get organized here. Mr. Goldberg, are you ready to go?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Back on the record. All parties are present. Let's have the jury, please. And, Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, you have your next witness available?
MR. DARDEN: How much longer do you have?
THE COURT: Do you have your next witness available?
MS. CLARK: I believe.
(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. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue and conclude your redirect examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson--
MR. GOLDBERG: I wanted to put this testing board back.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, as to the SID piper tech facility, which is more secure between the lobby area and the corridor area?
MR. MATHESON: The corridor area is the more secure of the two.
MR. GOLDBERG: And which is more secure between the corridor area and the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: The evidence processing room.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, the evidence processing room, in order to get into that showing--using the map, can you show us where you have to go?
MR. MATHESON: From the outside?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: To get from the--
MR. GOLDBERG: Or from the corridor at least.
MR. MATHESON: To get from the evidence processing room, which is located in the upper right-hand corner of the map here, you would have to come up this corridor, get through a door that is off the corridor into the storeroom, which requires card access, go through this storeroom and then enter through the door between the storeroom and the evidence processing room also using your access card to unlock it (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to June the 14th of last year, you said that Andrea Mazzola was processing some evidence from another case?
MR. MATHESON: She mentioned that to me, that she had.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was the case that was being processed one that involved non-biological evidence, specifically cartridge shells from a firearm?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know--
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know--do you know what kind of evidence she was processing?
MR. MATHESON: All I know is that--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Based on hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, when you were in that room, if you had seen anything else being processed that posed any kind of a concern in terms of the evidence in this case, would you have notated that in your notes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, not just related to this case. If I'm ever in a, you know, part of the laboratory where I perceive a problem is being done as far as evidence handling in that room, particular, if one case's evidence is too close to another or people are being sloppy with it, I would mention it to them and possibly note it down.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you testified on your cross-examination that between the 13th and the 16th or between the 13th and the 15th, the evidence in this case was not logged into any computer system or bar coded; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that happened on the 16th?
MR. MATHESON: Correct, after it was booked in at our evidence control unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if a person who was--somehow in the facility wanted to figure out where the evidence was in this case between the 13th and the 16th when it was entered into the computer, would there be any computerized records that they could use to figure out where on earth that facility it was?
MR. MATHESON: No, there wouldn't be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would there be any written records that are maintained in the file cabinet or anywhere else that they could use to figure where on earth in the facility it was?
MR. MATHESON: No, there wouldn't be.
MR. GOLDBERG: So does the fact that it's not entered into the computer mean that the evidence would be more easily found and tampered with or more difficult to find and tampered with?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you just would not be able to refer to a computer to find out where it's at.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you said, when you were talking about the computer system, that you didn't think the police officers would know how to use it. Why do you think that?
MR. MATHESON: We're talking about the sets computer system at this point?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: Well, it takes a little bit of training. It's not a very easy system to learn, to figure out how to determine the location of an evidence item.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the sets system, on off hours, can you use that system?
MR. MATHESON: Me personally?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because it's password protected and I don't know what the password is.
MR. GOLDBERG: So on off hours, if you're at the laboratory, even though you're a manager at SID, you can not use the system to figure out where something is in this facility?
MR. MATHESON: I can't, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can your criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can a police officer or detective?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to this door system that's depicted in some of the photographs, particularly on People's 206, the photograph that says card key entry, does that system make a computerized record of who goes in and out--excuse me--of who goes into the doors that have the system?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark another copy of what has been previously marked as an exhibit but not in total, and this will be People's 226 for identification. It says card access.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you have a copy of this? All right. People's 226.
(Peo's 226 for id = card access)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, I would like to show you People's 226 for identification and see if you recognize that. Why don't you just look through.
(The witness complies.)
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: This is a copy of a printout that I provided that shows the activity of the reader for the door into the evidence processing room. In other words, it's all the transactions of whose card was read and whether or not they were allowed entry.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on the 13th--between the 13th and the 16th, were there any unauthorized entries when you reviewed this document?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were all of the individuals who entered the room that are listed on this document people who are authorized to do so?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if I may, I would like to put this on the elmo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the date of June 13th as reflected on this document, sir, at the bottom of the document, can you tell us when Dennis Fung badged--excuse me--when Andrea Mazzola badged into the evidence processing room in the evening hours? Is the resolution high enough?
MR. MATHESON: I believe--well, not quite. I believe, from looking at this, that Andrea Mazzola has indicated as having entered that--I believe it's at 1837 or 6:37 in the evening. It's the--the 8th that I'm not totally sure about.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then Mr. Fung went in at what appears to be 1844 or 6:44?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. Actually, that one's easier to read at the moment.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the 13th, is that your understanding of the day that the crime scenes were processed by Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what does "end of report" mean?
MR. MATHESON: That means that for the search criteria that I put in, which was for all the entries for that door for that date, was completed. That indicates that the last entry there was the last time somebody entered into that particular room.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, directing your attention to the next page, 614 at 6:03--is this 6:03 A.M., sir?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that indicate that you badged into the evidence processing room at that time?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, between the time that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung had last badged in on the 13th and when you badged in on 6-14 at 6:03 A.M., were there any entries into that room?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, does this document--would this document reflect all of the activity that would have occurred between those two times?
MR. MATHESON: With regard to that door, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was there any activity reflected on this document for that door between the time that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung last badged in and the time that you badged in on the 14th?
MR. MATHESON: No, there's no information--no activity indicated.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you take a look when you were reviewing the documents as to when Mr. Yama--well, is there an analyst who works for your lab named Mr. Yamauchi, Collin Yamauchi?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does he also have access to the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, he does.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge, did he do some of the testing in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you look at some documents as to when Mr. Yamauchi began sampling evidence on the 14th?
MR. MATHESON: I saw something that indicated when they were sampled, yes, a time frame.
MR. GOLDBERG: When? When? When did it start?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I would like to see the document again.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm going to show you a document and see if this refreshes your recollection and ask you just to describe for the record what it is you're looking at.
MR. MATHESON: This document is a serology item description note that has listed a number of the evidence items on it along with the item number designation and little drawings of what the samples looked like.
MR. GOLDBERG: What time did Mr. Yamauchi start his sampling?
MR. MATHESON: On these items, about 1000 hours.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. Answer stricken.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, as to the document you just looked at, is that a document that is--you've described before, "serology item description note"; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That is correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that a document that's maintained in the ordinary course of the crime laboratory's business?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it generated at or near the time that the analyst is actually performing the activity that's contained or written about in the report?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: When does he fill that out in relationship to the activity that he's reporting?
MR. MATHESON: At or around the time that the activity occurs.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the type of report, when you were describing it before, that also typically will involve little sketches of the items of evidence that the analyst makes while he's looking at it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And according to this report, did Mr. Yamauchi begin a sampling at 10:00 A.M.?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, your Honor, on previously stated ground.
THE COURT: Noted. Overruled. 1271.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, about 10:00 A.M.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you had a conversation that involved yourself and Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung relating to what was going to be tested the morning of the 14th; is that true?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that morning, to your knowledge, did Mr. Yamauchi begin sampling items in the Bundy trail at 10:00 o'clock?
MR. BLASIER: Objection to characterization of trail.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did he begin sampling items that we've referred to in this Court as the Bundy trail, item 47, 48, 49, 50, 52?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: All right. It's noted. It has been referred to though.
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So items in that trail--as to--as to certain items in that trail, the testing was underway at and after 10:00 A.M. on 6-14?
MR. MATHESON: As far as the collection and preparation for testing, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, Mr. Matheson, doesn't that mean that after 10:00 A.M. on 6-14, it was too late to tamper with any evidence because the test had already been done?
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to the door entry document, and I would like to--like you to look at the entries that occurred between 6:03 and between--
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we back up because I want to see where it says 9:59 I believe. Well, wait. Let's look at the next page.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, does this document indicate that at 9:59, Mr. Yamauchi badged into the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is A.M., 9:59 A.M.?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And reviewing the document between the time that you badged in at 6:03 and when Mr. Yamauchi badged in at 9:59 A.M., are all of the people who badged in people who were authorized to badge into that room?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, reviewing the people who badged in between those two time frames, do you see that you badged in on a number of occasions?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. I was in and out of that room quite a bit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you count the number of times that you went into the room between those two times?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I count five times on this page not counting the one--original entry. And there's none before that time on the following page. So it would be a total of six times that I entered that room by using my card.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the number of times that Andrea Mazzola entered the room in those time frames--in that time frame?
MR. MATHESON: I count five times for that time frame. Her name appears six times, but two of the times are the same minage. Probably just held it up there for too long and it read it twice.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us the number of times that Dennis Fung came in between those two time frames?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I count four times on the first page and none on the second. So four times.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us how many times Collin Yamauchi went in?
MR. MATHESON: I see three times on the first page and twice on the second not counting the last time that he used his card to get in.
MR. GOLDBERG: And by the way, as to your SID employees, do they all know--is it common knowledge within SID that when you use this system, you're creating a permanent record of going into the door?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they're aware of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the four of you, Andrea Mazzola, Dennis Fung, Collin Yamauchi and yourself, you were in and out of that room continuously between when you came in at 6:03 and when Mr. Yamauchi came in at 9:59; is that correct?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, we were in and out of there quite a bit, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. There were time frames where you were not in is--where one of the four of you might not have been in according to this?
MR. MATHESON: Might not have been, that's right. It doesn't record exits, just entries.
MR. GOLDBERG: So, sir, with respect to this room, the evidence processing room, is there any location, given the layout of that room, where a person could kind of secrete themselves maybe in an anti room or somewhere else where they can be private and unobserved by someone who walks into the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any kind of a mechanical device or other device in the evidence processing room that would warn someone in the evidence processing room that someone was approaching and about to enter, maybe a device that might yell out, "warning, someone is about to enter the evidence processing room. All evidence tampering must cease"?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, is there any kind of mechanical device or any other device that warns someone in the evidence processing room of another criminalist who's about to enter the room?
MR. MATHESON: When you hold your card up to the wall, it allows entry by unlocking the door for you, and because these are steel-framed doors, the latch sound is quite loud, and then you push the handle down and walk into the room.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the actual activity of badging in is simultaneous to this noise that you're talking about; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Well, within a second or two, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So wouldn't you say, Mr. Matheson, that it would have been nearly impossible for someone to have had the degree of privacy that would have been required in order to have tampered with any evidence?
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, that's--
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the people that entered this room between the two time frames that we've been focusing on, are all of those trusted employees of the Scientific Investigation Division?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that true of all the individuals that are contained on this document?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the years that you've worked in the laboratory--well, I guess piper tech has been around for how many years?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, I believe we've been there about four years, four and a half years, something like that.
MR. GOLDBERG: In that entire time, have you ever come across a situation where you found a police officer to have somehow gained unauthorized, unsupervised access into the lab?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or a civilian?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at any time, sir, did you ever learn that there was anyone who worked at the Scientific Investigations Division that held or expressed any animosity towards the Defendant?
MR. MATHESON: I have not heard anything like that, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever heard anything like that from Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, when you were watching some of the proceedings in this case, did you in fact see any news footage of Mr. Fung shaking the hands and hugging members of the Defense team?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would ask that the jury be admonished to disregard that question.
THE COURT: Nope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever seen--
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let me see counsel here over at the sidebar with the reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar. Mr. Goldberg, not an appropriate question. Mr. Blasier, not an appropriate objection. And you guys created that problem by doing that in the first place anyway. So knock it off.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, have you ever seen any evidence or indication in your entire work in this case of any of the evidence having been tampered with?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever seen any indication in this case that any report appears to have been altered or changed in a way so as to conceal the alteration; in other words doctored?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for conclusion, speculation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever seen any irregularities in any of the reports that you've come across in this case?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: There have been some discrepancies that we've cleared up through proper channels with the issuance of what's called a 314, a report change.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean things where an entry--wrong date had been made and that kind of stuff?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What's a 314?
MR. MATHESON: It's--it's a form number for an official correction to a department form.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked about whether detectives have kits to collect evidence. Do all the detectives in the department to your knowledge have kits to collect biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have all the detectives in homicide been provided with such kits?
MR. MATHESON: No, they have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge, have all the detectives in homicide been provided with such training?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe they have, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you said that SID responds to only from 10 to 15 percent of the homicides in the city?
MR. MATHESON: I think I estimated 10 to 20 percent.
MR. GOLDBERG: 10 to 20 percent? So there would be nothing suspicious about a detective not calling SID, would there, to respond to a homicide?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would there be anything unusual about a detective that decided not to call SID and simply collect the biological evidence himself?
MR. MATHESON: Not unusual, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting to the issue of crime scene processing a little bit, you were asked about a alternative light source. What's that for?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the main use of it is similar to the laser. We particularly use it for looking for biological fluids such as semen.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why do you use it to look for biological fluids such as semen?
MR. MATHESON: Well, under intense light, which is what this provides, in certain waive length and wearing goggles to block out the background, semen fluoresces and allows you to detect it because it's basically, you know, colorless, it's hard to see just with your naked eye.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you use that for blood in the field typically?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you have used an alternative light source in processing either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scenes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, based upon your training and experience and what you've heard of the evidence in this case, would it have been appropriate to use an alternative light source in the Bundy location?
MR. MATHESON: I have not heard of a situation related to this where it would have provided any additional information.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about Rockingham?
MR. MATHESON: Same.
MR. GOLDBERG: When can an alternative light source be used?
MR. MATHESON: As far as--it's available to criminalists to take out and use whenever they feel it necessary.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you use it in the daylight?
MR. MATHESON: Well, no. It's--it's a light source. For it to work, it needs to be dark.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at one point in the cross-examination, you were talking about putting a scale in photographs where there are bloodstain patterns. What does that phrase "bloodstain patterns" mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's a different evidentiary aspect of blood rather than just a stain. The pattern is how the stain or stains is deposited, the shape of them, whether or not there's what are called satellites, which is the part that drips off. It's the group of samples, the pattern that is created by the deposition of a blood--blood samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, is there a difference between a relatively symmetrical blood drop, round blood drop, I should say round bloodstain and a bloodstain pattern?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained on foundation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you know whether there is a distinction between a symmetrical blood drop and a blood pattern?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond his expertise.
THE COURT: The foundation has not been established as far as blood patterns are concerned.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your experience--do you have experience in terms of recognizing blood patterns in a field situation?
MR. MATHESON: I have training and experience in recognizing patterns. I'm not trained to interpret them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you also trained on how to photo document bloodstain or bloodstain patterns so that someone else can interpret them?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And what is the distinction between a bloodstain, a symmetrical one and a blood pattern, as you understand it?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, blood pattern as a rule is several drops of blood forming a pattern or shape. A single drop can still have a pattern by its shape, but normally it's a scattering of drops or samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it more important when you're photo documenting a crime scene to put a scale where you have a pattern or just a symmetrical stain?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the reason for the scale is to be able to interpret the pattern or give you an idea of the size and the shape of what's there. It's vital to the interpretation of a bloodstain pattern to have the proper scales in place.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about just a symmetrical stain?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if there is never going to be any interpretation on it, then it can just be photographed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to alterations that may occur at a crime scene, are those--can alterations be photo documented as well as documented in notes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, there's a lot of different ways to document something. If you have two photos of a piece of evidence, the overalls to begin with, showing it one location and then a subsequent photograph before collection, it shows it in another location, it has been documented by that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, if an alteration has been photo documented, in other words, if you have a before photograph showing what it looked like before the bodies were removed and you also have an after photograph showing any alteration that may have occurred after the bodies were removed, would there be any particular reason why it would necessarily--why you would have to also document it in the crime scene identification checklist?
MR. MATHESON: No. It's already being documented through the photographs.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the glove that was found at the Bundy location, you did some testing on that; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was conventional serology testing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you aware of some evidence that has been introduced in this case indicating that the glove is in a slightly different location in the after the bodies were removed photographs as opposed to before the bodies were removed photographs?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: And from a serology, forensic serology standpoint, does that present any problem?
MR. MATHESON: It did not affect the results I don't believe, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: You were also talking about collection of stains and initialing coin envelopes. Do you initial the coin envelopes in the field when you're collecting a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Usually not, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: When do you usually initial the coin envelopes?
MR. MATHESON: When I get back to the laboratory and I've dried the samples out, placed the samples into a bindle and then the bindle is placed in an envelope, at that point, I fill in the rest of the information on the envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were asked also about Andrea Mazzola's testimony. Was it your understanding of her testimony or did she say in her testimony that for collecting the stain, she uses non-serrated tweezers, smooth tweezers?
MR. MATHESON: That was the impression I got from her testimony.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any problem with using non-serrated, smooth tweezers?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague as to "problem."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: No, there's not. That's the proper tool to use.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it your understanding, sir, that in the serology community, forensic serology community, it is acceptable at a crime scene to use clean instruments as opposed to sterile instruments?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you also testified on cross-examination about a hypothetical, series of hypothetical involving a blanket. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: In general, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you familiar with the testimony in this case relating to a blanket having been placed over Nicole Simpson?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any reason non-forensic or otherwise for having done that?
MR. MATHESON: I've been advised that there is, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, can you think of any reasons, non-forensic reasons for doing that?
THE COURT: It's irrelevant.
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you were giving your testimony as to the propriety of doing that, did you limit your answer to forensic, forensic reasons?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What would a non--just tell us generically, what would a non-forensic reason be?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say forensic reasons, what does that include?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I'm strictly talking about the--the evidence itself as opposed to anything other--any other reason such as investigative.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "forensic" mean?
MR. MATHESON: "forensic" has to do with associating--like forensic science is science associated with the law.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if you knew, sir, when you were--if you were processing a crime scene and you knew, in a situation like ours, that the detectives had in fact brought a blanket out and it was not original to the crime scene, would you have made any further inquiries about the blanket?
MR. MATHESON: Probably not, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have any personal knowledge as to what inquiries if any or what Dennis Fung's state of knowledge was as to the circumstances of the blanket being brought out?
MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that you would not have collected the blanket. Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I probably wouldn't have collected it. It's just, you have a blanket that you know was placed over the victim. There's a lot of blood on it. All that blood is going to be coming from the victim. It was not there when the crime occurred. It was brought in from the outside. So for all of those standpoints, it has very little evidentiary value.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Move to strike that answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were also testifying about whether or not another team of criminalists could have been sent out to the Bundy location. Why wasn't that done?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there's a couple of reasons. One is that I was informed by Mr. Fung that things were under hand, they did not need to have additional help out there. And also, as Dennis' supervisor and now manager, resources need to be allocated. This was not the only thing occurring in the city at the time. Our criminalists that respond to the field also have other casework responsibilities. And without some indication that help was needed, I think it would be inappropriate for me to pull people away from jobs they're doing on other cases to go out and assist on a crime scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any advantages to having a team of two criminalists handling a single case if a crime scene--if two separate scenes appear to be related?
MR. MATHESON: There's advantages to it, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: And that is continuity. You have--the same people dealing with both locations have an idea of what's going on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is it your understanding--well, what is your understanding with respect to the advantages of conducting a crime scene investigation under daylight hours as opposed to nighttime hours?
MR. MATHESON: Well, during the day, you've got daylight. You have natural light filtering in and around the scene. You're not having to limit yourself to artificial sources such as flashlights or spotlights or something like that. It's just better to see what you're doing.
MR. GOLDBERG: In the case of the Bundy crime scene and the Rockingham crime scene, would a daylight search of the exterior be preferable to a nighttime search?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it would.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you testified that you felt that the Coroners were called too soon. Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I mentioned, from criminalists' point of view, the evidence we're collecting from the scene, we want to get everything we can with the least disturbance. Having the Coroner's office come in and do whatever examination they're going to do with the body at the scene, wrap them up and remove it from the scene has the potential of disturbing evidence that's around that location. I would want--from my viewpoint, I want to get everything out from around it first.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's say assume hypothetically, sir, that you were processing the Bundy crime scene and you arrived at 7:00 A.M. how long would it take you to have collected all the evidence that was collected by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, if you can give us an approximation?
MR. MATHESON: That would be a rough approximation. I--including location of the items, documenting the whole thing that's involved in the collecting process, I'd estimate somewhere probably between three and five hours.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that means that if the Coroner were called after you completed your work, that would be sometime between 10:00 and 12:00?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if there are two competing theories in this case, one that the Coroners weren't called fast enough, and, two, that the Coroners were called too soon--
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you subscribe to the theory that the Coroners weren't called soon enough?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you a couple of questions that you were--related to topics of the Bronco. With respect to the collection of stains, if you're going to collect a stain--excuse me. If you're going to phenolphtalein a stain that you're not going to collect, that you've decided not to collect, you said you would not take a photograph or not necessarily take a photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Not necessarily. If I have a stain that I don't know whether or not it's blood, I'm going to test it first. And if it's not, then it doesn't have any evidentiary value in relation to that. So there would be no reason to have a photograph of it, keeping in mind that we already have overalls of these items.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And as to the brake pedals, the phenolphtalein on the brake pedals, if you are not going to collect--if you've decided that you're not going to collect any stains from the brake pedals in the Bronco but you want to see whether there's any evidence that someone in the Bronco put their foot on the pedals, any of the three pedals, if that is the case, what problems if any would be presented by using a single swab for all three pedals?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the problem would be, if you've got a positive--well, first, you're going to do a visual examination of it anyway. But if at that point, you're just doing a general swabbing, the problem would be, if you did get a positive, you wouldn't know what pedal it came from.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if you were not interested in collecting it anyway, would that problem be as significant?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's still--it still would be a problem. It's a piece of information. It would be nice to know what pedal had blood on it so you can take a closer look and potentially collect something.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Would that be the same type of a problem as it would be if you decided that you definitely were going to collect something from the pedals?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'll move on to another--I'll move on to another area.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, is it your experience in the crime scenes that you have investigated and the ones that you've reviewed as a supervisor, that it is possible to do a perfect job of investigating a crime scene?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I don't think it is possible to do a perfect job, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is it your experience that using 20/20 hindsight, looking back at a crime scene, it is always possible to find areas of improvement or things that could have been done better?
THE COURT: It's leading.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: It's leading.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, when you're looking back at a crime scene, do you always find that there are things that could have differently--done differently or perhaps even better?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yeah, there are many times on looking back I wish I would have done something different.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that necessarily mean that the things that you did were done wrong?
MR. MATHESON: No, not at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, their work in this crime scene as you heard about it during the testimony and from reviewing the reports, did they do a competent job in both crime scenes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, did you ever consider from a management perspective removing Andrea Mazzola as a participant in this case?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you ever have any questions as to the competence of the job that she performed on the crime scenes in this case?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: No.
THE COURT: I believe it was covered on cross.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about Mr. Fung?
MR. MATHESON: No, I had no problem with his competence on this case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the crime scene documentation, did you say that there were two areas where you felt that the crime scene documentation could have provided additional information?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I believe I said there were two very distinct areas that stood out in my mind that I feel they very definitely should have filled out and didn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those were?
MR. MATHESON: That the document was not signed and that it was not dated or timed as to when they left.
MR. GOLDBERG: And could that affect in any way any of the test results in this case?
MR. MATHESON: The fact that those are left off, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you said that you personally don't count swatches. Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I said I didn't count swatches.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's true. And why was it that you did not count swatches?
MR. MATHESON: Because in my opinion, the evidence is the stain itself. As a matter of fact, my property reports used to always reflect, as you said, item number. The quantity in a bloodstain was always one. It said, you know, like item no. 4, one blood stain collected on cloth swatches.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have the kind of accusations that are being made here, as to planting of biological evidence, been ones that you've ever--
THE COURT: Sounds argumentative.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, have you ever found it necessary or advisable to count swatches from the standpoint of being able to--be able to say that, "when we collected them, we had six and when we tested them, we had six"?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That's never been an issue or necessary before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because the idea of the number that was there to begin with versus the amount of the typing has never come up or been a problem.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's never even been raised by the Defense before to your knowledge?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think we've covered this area.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of crime scene documentation, you were asked about a book called "Forensic Science" by Peter de Forest; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have the opportunity prior to your testimony to speaking to Dr. de Forest about crime scene documentation in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the use of a pencil for making sketches of the crime scene, does Dr. de Forest depose that?
MR. MATHESON: He indicated that he did not have a problem with that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of the ASCLAD book that you were asked about, when you were shown a portion that dealt with usage of pen versus pencil, do you know what the position of that organization is with respect to field notes?
MR. MATHESON: My reading that document, field procedures, is not part of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there a difference between field notes and a lab report in terms of the degree of formality of the documents as they're used in your laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, field notes are just that. They are notes. They're what you are preparing out in the field as you're making observations. A formal report is the final product of--of the work that you've done.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, what are these witness critique forms that you were asked about for?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I mentioned, we have been in the process for many years of trying to obtain ASCLAD lab accreditation. One of the things that's in there, and it's a good recommendation, is the monitoring of your employees and their Court abilities. One way to monitor a person's ability in Court is to go in and watch them. But for a supervisor to go to Court with every one of their employees and see how they do is just impractical. So the witness critique form was created so at those times that they're not observed directly, they can take them in and give them to the different parties and we can get some feedback in the laboratory as to what the different parties in the case felt of that person's performance.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why weren't they used in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I mentioned, we don't use the critique forms when, you know, supervisors--somebody goes to Court, in this case, we're being critiqued by many more people than even a from would provide.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you said that you had watched some of the testimony in this case; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you been advised in fact that as an expert, you were allowed to do that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is part of the job of a criminalist, part of the job description, as it's used in your laboratory, that they are expected to provide expert testimony in Court on scientific issues?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. As a matter of fact, it's part of our interview process so that the people know before they're hired that this is a part of their job.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you talked about an interview that you and Michelle Kestler--I don't know if "interview" is the right word--but a discussion that you had where Andrea Mazzola was present and you gave--you talked about testimony and tips and the like. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have an independent recollection as to whether that was prior to when she started her testimony, during or after?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I know it wasn't after. I don't know if it was during or prior.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you write it down anywhere?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't believe I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you or anyone in your presence ever try to put any pressure on her or suggest to her the substance of her testimony?
MR. MATHESON: No. Not at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you also testified on cross-examination about a team of Defense experts visiting the lab. Do you recall that?
MR. MATHESON: I believe there are references to that a couple times, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: How many times did a team of Defense experts visit the lab in this case?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it's five or six.
MR. GOLDBERG: So almost half a dozen times?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that typical on a case, that a team of Defense experts gets to visit the lab half a dozen times?
MR. BLASIER: Objection on previously stated grounds.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, was there one Defense visit that involved a Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf taking a look at evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge, was that incident photo documented in any way?
MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, was there also an occasion on August the 26th that you've testified to that the Bronco in this case was searched again and certain items including the console were removed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge, was the Defense invited to that search?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not aware of that one way or the other.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you also testified about an Albany--about evidence that was shipped off to an Albany location?
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to see 210.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, prior to that or on the same date that that started rather, was there a Defense visit on February the 16th in which Dr.--a Dr. Lee looked at certain items to your knowledge?
MR. MATHESON: I'm aware of that, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, was there also another incident where Dr. Lee looked at items including swatches from the Bundy trail in your presence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when he did that, did he use some sort of an instrument for the purposes of looking at those swatches?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, your Honor. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Grounds what?
THE COURT: Scope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is it your understanding that it is an accepted forensic practice to use clean--you've testified that it is acceptable to use clean, but not sterile tweezers; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you also testified that Dr. Lee is considered to be a widely known forensic expert; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you saw him on this lab visit when he was examining certain items, did he use clean but not sterile tweezers?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Beyond the scope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you seen people who are well known within the forensic community, but not members of your lab using clean, but not sterile tweezers?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: We're beyond the scope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the board that's just been put up, I believe it's People's 210 for identification, were these--these are certain items of evidence that were released also to the Defense, is that correct, that you released?
MR. MATHESON: They were released to them. They were released in my presence. I didn't do the actual release.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this a--also in conjunction with a Defense visit or was this just an occasion where someone came, Mr. Ragle came to collect some evidence?
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. I believe this is beyond the cross.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's called scope.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd also like to see the additional LAPD evidence disposition board.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, with respect to the item no. 6 that was sent out to Albany--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, with respect to item no. 6, does the photo documentation that was done on the evidence, prior to it being sent to the Defense, indicate that there was no control--excuse me--that there was no hair in the control bindle?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: But there was when it returned; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you think of any way other than that hair having been deposited at Albany by someone from the Defense so it could have gotten in there?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, does the hair in that bindle constitute contamination as you first defined that term when you gave us your initial definition on direct?
MR. MATHESON: It is an item that should not be with that bindle, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, in this particular case, if the evidence were to show that 6 were tested and the control came back without any biological material on it, would that indicate that in this case, it didn't--the hair didn't have any effect on it?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that can be done, sir, to determine whether this contamination in fact contributed biological evidence to the control?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: The swatch at this point could be tested.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know whether that has been done?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was sent out, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, as to the socks, you were asked whether photographs were taken before you did your cuttings. Did you find out that photographs were in fact taken before you did your cuttings?
MR. MATHESON: I had been told that they were, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the answer.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge, had they been taken?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, how often is it in your experience as a criminalist that it has been difficult for you to recognize blood on either black or dark navy blue fabrics?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. It's an impossible question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I can't come up with an exact answer for that.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not asking for a number, but is this something that happens, that does happen on occasion?
MR. MATHESON: Like I testified, it's difficult to see blood on very dark articles like that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was it, sir, that there was no rush to do testing on those socks?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there was a lot of work being done on this case and there were other items that we felt had a greater priority than something that on an initial, very brief examination, didn't appear to have any blood on it. So we sat that at a lower priority.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, turning to another issue, different issue, with respect to PCR technology, you said that you are not an expert, do not consider yourself to be an expert; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: But just to get a sense of your level of expertise, do you know how to perform the test?
MR. MATHESON: I have done it. It would take going back and rereading the procedures and, you know, trying to do it again. But I probably could.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in what context have you done it?
MR. MATHESON: In a classroom or learning context. I have never done it on casework or in our laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you have some working knowledge of the technical mechanism of PCR although you do not consider yourself to be an expert in that. Is that a fair statement?
MR. MATHESON: That's fair.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about with respect to the theoretical understanding of how this technology works?
MR. MATHESON: I have just a very basic broad understanding of the technology.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you also have a theoretical understanding of genetics and DNA from your background as a serologist and the like?
MR. MATHESON: General background, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of being able to read PCR results, do you know how to do that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about RFLP results?
MR. MATHESON: The actual mechanics of doing it? I mean, I have read them during a classroom setting. I know how to in general do that, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you read articles dealing with this technology in the scientific literature?
MR. MATHESON: Some, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the issue of contamination as it relates to PCR testing, have you read any studies--not studies at your own laboratory you did, but have you read studies dealing with that issue?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you think of any studies in particular?
MR. MATHESON: One in particular that comes to mind is one that was done by Dr. Budowle at the FBI.
THE COURT: Is that Bruce Budowle?
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is what?
THE COURT: I was just asking if it was Bruce Budowle.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the Court.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were testifying on cross-examination, at one point, you said that biological contamination, in other words, contamination of one type of blood with another type of blood would not change the type of the blood that was contaminated. What did you mean?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you're not going to--the type of the blood isn't going to change. It will still be what it always was. That's the nature of the genetic markers that we deal with as a rule. So by introducing another one, it will not change it. It may overpower it or it may degrade it or something else as that, but it will not change it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you were talking about an incident in your lab in which there was a problem with you said "a lot of PCR kits." Did you mean "a lot" as in many or "a lot" as in one discreet series of kits that you received in a single shipment?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I'm not even sure they came in a single shipment. "lot" in that term is used to indicate a series of items that are prepared at the same time using the same reagents.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you said something to the effect that in this business or in the business of forensics, that contamination can occasionally occur. What did you mean by that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is a reality. It's a sensitive test and contamination is a known situation that does occur in this sort of testing occasionally.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you also talked about, you didn't consider it a problem because of the controls. I didn't understand your answer on that.
MR. MATHESON: Well, contamination becomes a problem if it's occurring and you don't know it's happening. If you have controls in place that catch it, then, you know, that affects how you're going to read the samples or associated with that control. It becomes a problem, like I said, if it goes undetected.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this particular incident involving this "lot" of test kits, was it your understanding or to your knowledge was the problem in fact detected by the internal controls in the kits?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this a problem--maybe "a problem" isn't the right word. Is this issue with respect to the kits one that involved contamination in the laboratory as a whole or one that, to your understanding, involved an issue with respect to the reagents and the kits?
MR. MATHESON: To my understanding, it dealt with, you know, the kits themselves.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this incident is one that you do or do not have personal knowledge of?
MR. MATHESON: Just the information that was relayed to me by the criminalist that was doing the work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, how many divisions within the Scientific Investigation Division deal with blood specimens? Are there any other than toxicology and serology?
MR. MATHESON: You're talking about units within the division?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: Toxicology does and our blood alcohol unit deals with biological specimens and the serology unit does. As far as that go--you know, mostly criminal--at some point, if they're dealing with a field situation and occasionally narcotics will if they receive a bloody syringe or something. But as a rule, it's blood alcohol, toxicology and serology.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are some of the procedures that are in place that you were asked about in cross-examination with respect to wearing gloves and the like for health reasons?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Definitely.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are some of the precautions that you take for health reasons as well as preventing cross-contamination?
THE COURT: I think we've gone through this before.
MR. GOLDBERG: On cross-examination.
THE COURT: No, but we--I thought we did it initially too.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, to your knowledge, has anyone at the lab ever contracted any diseases from blood such as hepatitis or aids or any other type of disease?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is it your understanding and from your testing that there is blood at the Bundy crime scene location that is consistent with Ronald Goldman, Nicole Brown and the Defendant?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any principal of natural sciences that you are aware of that could somehow result in a situation where the Defendant's blood or the Defendant's saliva could selectively contaminate all five of the dots at Bundy, yet not any of the specimens that were identified as being consistent with Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Not that I know of.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were also asked about the evidence processing and drying that takes place. Based upon your understanding of that process, is there anything in natural sciences that would explain how flaking or chipping from the Defendant's--from a sample of the Defendant's blood, if it even occurred, if it were to occur hypothetically, could somehow selectively contaminate the five Bundy drops, yet none of the controls in those drops and not the victim's blood?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Speculative.
THE COURT: Speculation. Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is there any magnetic or any other physical property that you're aware of that could be associated with the five drops from the Bundy location that would somehow cause the Defendant's blood to contaminate only those five drops, yet none of the controls nor any of the other biological specimens from the victims?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you think of, sir, any principal in natural sciences as to how the Defendant's blood could contaminate the five Bundy drops, yet not the controls?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Not given how the samples are processed and dried.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were asked about wiping down counters between samples. Why is that not necessary in your judgment?
MR. MATHESON: Because you are--if you're following proper procedure, your samples that you're dealing with are not touching the counters. It's--you know, they're being transferred--if we're talking about specifically as it's being packaged, they're being transferred from the package they come in into the final bindle and they're not coming in contact with the surface of the counter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in terms of the drying process, is there any advantage that Dennis Fung's process of using the test tubes has as opposed to your practice of not using test tubes, but allowing the samples to dry only on the--on the plastic baggies?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the way he does it, the swatches confined within a glass tube, if that glass tube is labeled in such a way and that there is some way that that box happen--if we had an earthquake or something and the box fell out of the counter or whatever, if the samples happened to get no longer placed on top of the package they came in, then his are trapped inside of the glass vial with a label on the outside, odds are, they're aren't going to fall out. With the way I do it, potentially if that box is seriously disturbed, the swatch is more open to the air and has a more likely chance of getting jostled around and mixed up.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there also some advantages that your procedure arguably has?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
MR. MATHESON: I like my procedure because it opens the sample up more, allows air to get around it and, you know, through it and allows the samples to dry more quickly. So there's a trade off with either one of the techniques.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that your understanding generally with respect to evidence collection, biological evidence collection, that there are a number of different ways of doing it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's true.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that there are advantages and disadvantages to a variety of these different ways?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to--assume hypothetically, Mr. Matheson, that all the substrate controls with respect to the evidence in this case that was tested tested negatively. Would that demonstrate that not changing gloves between each sample did not create a problem?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. I think unintelligible, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe it would.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you assumed hypothetically that all the substrate controls typed negatively, what would that demonstrate with respect to not changing paper between each item?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, if the controls all came out clean, it would indicate that the technique that was used was proper, there was not transfer between the samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: And also assuming that hypothetically, those substrate controls type Back negatively, what would that say about using clean versus sterile instruments at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: It would indicate to me that the process is sufficient, that it does the job it's supposed to do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what would it demonstrate with regard to the method of handling or processing the evidence for drying and packaging that was used in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Same thing. The controls are there to try and detect any problem that might occur, and if all the controls are clean through the process, then apparently the process worked.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, I'd like to turn to the issue of this vial of blood, item no. 17, that you've been asked about on cross-examination. When you were--you were given a vial of red colored liquid yesterday by the Defense; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's true.
MR. GOLDBERG: That was represented to contain how much liquid?
MR. MATHESON: I was told that there was eight milliliters in it.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you measured it, how much did you measure?
MR. MATHESON: After pouring--I was supplied with the vial and with a graduated tube. After emptying the contents of the vial into the tube, I measured the quantity to be seven and a half milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you try to pour out the entire tube?
MR. MATHESON: Well, not with a real great vengeance, but I did tap it on the top and tried to get as much out as possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what do you believe accounts for the difference between 7.5 and 8 milliliters when you measured it?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if I can assume that they were accurate, that there was in fact eight milliliters in that tube to begin with, you could still see some left in the vial that was difficult to shake out to add to the measurement. And if there was a--I measured seven and a half. That means what couldn't be shaken out was about a half millimeter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did that surprise you?
MR. MATHESON: Actually a little bit higher than I would have thought. But there's always going to be some that is going to be retained.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is it true what people say, that blood is thicker than water?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Bad taste.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection what?
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is blood thicker than water?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it more viscous?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And--
THE COURT: You want to tell the jurors what viscous means?
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it more--
THE COURT: Ask the witness.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Ask the witness what--
MR. GOLDBERG: What does viscous mean, Mr. Matheson?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is thicker and it is not as runny or as thin as water. It has some body to it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if a full milliliter of water would stick to the inside--I'm not sure "stick," but adhere to the inside of a vial when it's dumped out, would you expect that there would be more than a milliliter of blood that would adhere to the vial as completely dumped out?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, would you expect that upon dumping out a vial of blood, that more would adhere to the sides than upon dumping out a vial of water?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I would.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assumed that the vial did in fact have eight milliliters of water and that a milliliter adhered to the sides of the tube, you would expect that if it had been blood, it would be more than a milliliter?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it wasn't a milliliter. It was half a milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. Half a milliliter. Right.
MR. MATHESON: Assuming there was eight, it ended up being seven and an half, if it was blood, I would anticipate there would be a little bit more.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked about items no. 59 and 60 and shown some photographs, the reference vials of the victims' blood and shown some photographs indicating that there was some smearing of blood on them. Is that unusual when you receive blood from the Coroner's office?
MR. MATHESON: No, not at all. They always come with too much blood on the outside of them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you are opening up a vial of blood yourself for the purposes of commencing ABO or electrophoresis analysis, how do you open it up?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The process that I use, first, I'm wearing gloves because I don't want to get any of the blood on me. I take a chem-wipe, which I described before, it's a kind of a scientific tissue, and wrap it around the stopper of the tube and then grab the stopper through the chem-wipe, lifting it out, popping it out. I normally put it away from me so if there's any chance of any of it splattering a little bit, hopefully the chem-wipe will catch it. And then I take and set the chem-wipe in the cap on the table and place the tube into what I described before as a test tube rack.
MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, when you do that, do you ever get blood on your gloves?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do sometimes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with the gloves?
MR. MATHESON: I take them off and put them in our biohazard disposal.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you always take your gloves off when you open up a vial of--a reference vial for the purposes of testing before you commence--after opening up the vial and before commencing the testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if I'm working on that particular blood vial and I don't get much of a blood on my hands from opening it or actually if I don't get any that I can see, I don't change them at that point. If I do get blood on them, I'll change them before the testing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And after you are entirely finished working with the vial but before you start your testing, do you change them, throw them away?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you know how much blood you get on the chem-wipe and/or gloves typically when you open up a vial of blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know. I'd have to estimate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, have you ever--do you routine spill as much as a half milliliter on the chem-wipe and on your gloves?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, is this something that happens on a routine basis when you're working in serology?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you don't spill it. It's a matter of--you know, as you're taking off--there is blood around the cap, you know, because when the blood is being stored, it's not always being stored vertically. It lays on the bottom or gets upside down, whatever. So blood gets around the cap. When you open it up, it does then get on to this chem-wipe many times and it does get on your gloves. And particularly when you lay it down, the cap of these tubes has a well up in the inside of it, and that tends to trap some and it's probably two or three-tenths of a milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this something that you keep track of as you're doing it? Do you make a mental note or an actual physical note, "I got two or three-tenths of a milliliter on my gloves and my chem-wipe"?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because for our testing, there's plenty of blood left in the vial. I don't worry about that little bit other than the fact that I want to clean up after.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what happens to that two to three-tenths of a milliliter on the gloves and the chem-wipe? Do you just throw them away?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this could happen every time that you process a given blood vial?
MR. MATHESON: It's possible, yes.
THE COURT: Do you think we've about covered this?
MR. GOLDBERG: That was my last question on that particular issue.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, I'd like to direct your attention to the Defendant's blood vial chart.
MR. GOLDBERG: If we could put that up.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I think it's Defense 1139.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is that about as high as that will go, Mr. Fairtlough? I need it higher. Thank you, Deputy Smith.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'd like to go in reverse chronological order over the dates that you've already been asked about and testified to on cross-examination starting with September the 30th. On September the 30th, you said that you released one milliliter of blood to Mr. Ragle; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he's a Defense expert; is that true?
MR. MATHESON: He is hired by the Defense, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you say one milliliter, are you confident in the precision of that number as being what you actually released?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Because for that incident, I used a calibrated pipette that draws out one milliliter and then delivers one milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are in fact accurate in your experience?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you testified to the one milliliter figure, did you take into account any amounts of blood that would be adhering to the pipette--to the pipette that would just be thrown out?
MR. MATHESON: For the one milliliter? No.
MR. GOLDBERG: How much additional would that be if you added that amount in?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear a little more foundation on that though.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I thought we had covered this at some length before too actually.
THE COURT: But specifically with regard to pipetters and the tools that they use and the tubes that they use, I haven't heard that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what kind of a pipetter do--did you use for this procedure?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know the brand name. We have a couple of different ones that are made and calibrated to deliver one milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: But do you use--your laboratory uses disposable pipettes and then also something called the pipette-man?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the brands of pipetter we use.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this one of the mechanical type pipettes or was it one of the disposable pipettes?
MR. MATHESON: It was a mechanical pipette.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that have a disposable tip that goes on the end of it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. You put a tip on the end of it. The pipetter is reusable. You put a tip on the end. It's discarded after you use it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you routinely use these mechanical pipetters in your work at the serology lab?
MR. MATHESON: When I was working in the serology lab, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately how large, if you can just indicate maybe by holding up your fingers, is the portion of the tip that actually goes into the blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the tip itself is about, oh, approximately two inches. You would stick in maybe a quarter of an inch or so into the blood itself to draw it out.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the tip get totally--how far does the tip go in terms of being immersed into the blood?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I think I just said, it goes--normally you try to go in about a quarter, half inch, something like that, but just into the surface of the blood. As you're drawing it out, the level is going down, you lower the tip.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you're drawing the blood into the tip, does the entire tip become full of blood?
MR. MATHESON: No, not the entire one.
MR. GOLDBERG: What percentage of--well, can you give us an idea of how much?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you don't want to fill it all the way up because then you're getting close to the part that is not disposable, but it would fill up probably three-quarters full or so.
MR. GOLDBERG: Enough to constitute one milliliter?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what happens after you deliver the blood to the vial for the expert? How does the delivery system work?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you've got the blood now on the tip and you depress the plunger which delivers the blood that's inside the tip into--in this case, we put it into the small conical shape centrifuge tubes.
MR. GOLDBERG: In your experience, is the delivery of the blood, what, with the mechanical pipetter more complete than the delivery of blood with a disposable pipetter?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Because you're applying a direct pressure. I mean it is instrument that is meant to draw precise amounts and deliver them.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the amount that is adhering to the walls, is it relatively thick and viscous or is it relatively thin?
MR. MATHESON: No. There's very little adhering to the walls of the tip.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So how much would you estimate would be the amount adhering to the tip after the delivery takes place?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object as irrelevant, but part of that one milliliter that would be relevant is what went back in the tube.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It would be a very small amount, probably less than .1 milliliters.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know how much if any from your independent recollection blood you would have--you got on a chem-wipe and/or gloves in relationship to the September 30th transaction?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I don't have any independent recollection of this particular incident of what may have been left behind on the chem-wipe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So conservatively, we could assume 1.1 milliliters of blood had been consumed in this transaction?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: How much did you say is probably thrown out and--when you throw out the tip?
MR. MATHESON: Well, just in--as I say, just in the tip, it would be less than .1 milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: .1 milliliter. Okay.
MR. MATHESON: Just in the tip. It would be probably less than .1 milliliter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where else would you lose blood during this transaction?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. It--
THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence. Would you?
MR. MATHESON: Every time the blood vial is open, you have the opportunity of a little bit of the blood that's around the cap or stored in the cap of being pulled off into the chem-wipe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could you conservatively assume that 1.1 milliliters may have been used during this transaction?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Calls for speculation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there's a margin of--when we're trying to figure out how much you used in this transaction, is there a margin of error?
MR. MATHESON: Of course there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the margin--what accounts for the margin of error?
MR. MATHESON: Well, because the amounts, you're not measuring the amounts. There is--in almost every time a blood vial is opened up, there is going to be some blood that is not going to be returned to the vial and some blood in this case that did not make it into the centrifuge tube.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you say that a conservative estimate as to the margin of error on the September 30th transaction would be .1 milliliters?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What would you say would be the estimate as to the margin of error related to this transaction?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: The margin of error? You mean as far as what might have been consumed during this or--
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: I--the fact that some is going to be consumed, .1 millimeter does not seem that it would be excessive amount to say could have been not returned to the vial and not placed into the micro centrifuge tube.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your best estimate--
THE COURT: Excuse me. The last question and answer is stricken. The jurors to disregard it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, what is your best estimate as to the margin of error related--
THE COURT: Let me see counsel over at the sidebar without the Court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I have one or two things I need to take up out of the presence of the jury. So I think I'm going to release the jury for the afternoon at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. All right. And, counsel--excuse me. One other thing. The matter we had scheduled for 4:30 I'm going to put over to tomorrow. All right. We'll stand in recess. And let me see counsel in chambers after we break. All right. Mr. Matheson, tomorrow morning, 8:45.
(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Friday, May 5, 1995, 8:45 A.M.)
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California, )
plaintiff, )
vs. ) no. Ba097211 )
Orenthal James Simpson, )
Defendant. )
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Thursday, May 4, 1995
Volume 139 pages 25790 through 26062, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
Also present: Maya Hamburger, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 139 pages 25790 - 26062
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Thursday May 4, 1995 A.M. 25790 139 P.M. 25921 139
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX of witnesses
People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Matheson, Gregory 139 (Resumed) 25795bb 25924gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Matheson, Gregory 139 (Resumed) 25795bb 25924gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
224-A - Photograph of 25954 139 Electrophoretogram - 1309
224-B - Photograph of 25954 139 Electrophoretogram - 7310
224-C - Photograph of 25959 139 Electrophoretogram with two red arrows and the Initials "G.M."
225 - Electrophoresis 25961 139 Work sheet
226 - Card access 25992 139 Transaction report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
20 - Analyzed evidence 25850 139 Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1135 - Glass vial 25801 139 Containing red liquid substance (Vacutainer)
1136-A - Photograph of 25814 139 A glass vial containing red liquid substance with The date of 6/13/94 - O.J. Simpson
1136-B - Photograph of 25814 139 A glass vial containing red liquid substance with The date of 6/13/94 - O.J. Simpson
1137 - Photograph of 25817 139 Glass vial containing red liquid substance with The date of 6/13/94 - O.J. Simpson
1138 - Document 25829 139
1139 - Blood vial chart 25858 139
1140 - Analyzed evidence 25875 139 Report dated September 8, 1994
1141-A thru 1141-Z - 25889 139 Printouts from slides of an EAP demonstration
1142 - Printout of 25915 139 Electrophoretograms of items 42 and 84