Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:80
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 5/04/95 - 298k
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 00:38:34 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 6737
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1995
9:03 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON
MATTER.
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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
THE WITNESS: 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:
Q MR. MATHESON, GOOD MORNING.
A GOOD MORNING.
MR. BLASIER: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN LOGGED IN AS ITEM NO. 18 AND
--
MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT. AT SOME POINT IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE
18 AND THEN IT WAS CORRECTED.
Q WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPECT'S REFERENCE SAMPLE
IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND COULD YOU USE THE ANALOGY THAT WITH A WHEEL? ALL
ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE COMPARED TO THAT, CORRECT?
A TO THAT AND OTHER REFERENCE SAMPLES, YES.
Q AND THAT REFERENCE SAMPLE IN EFFECT IS THE HUB OF THE
WHEEL FROM WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IS LOOKED AT, CORRECT?
A ALONG WITH OTHER REFERENCES, YES.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES. IF THERE IS SOME PROBLEM THAT
COMPROMISES THE VALIDITY OF IT, THEN THERE IS A CONCERN, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH
RESPECT TO BLOOD SAMPLES, MANY TESTS CAN BE RUN ON EXTREMELY
SMALL AMOUNTS OF BLOOD SAMPLES?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: VERY SMALL QUANTITIES, YES, CAN BE DETECTED
AND TESTED.
Q BY 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?
A NO, YOU CANNOT.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: IN A MEDICAL SETTING, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE DETECTIVES DON'T DO THAT IN
THEIR OFFICE, DO THEY?
A NO, NOT NORMALLY.
Q IT IS DONE BY A TRAINED PERSON WHO KNOWS HOW TO DRAW
BLOOD, CORRECT?
A IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q NOW, HAVE YOU DRAWN BLOOD BEFORE YOURSELF? DO YOU
KNOW HOW TO DO THAT?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q HAVE YOU SEEN IT DONE?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE USED TO
DRAW BLOOD?
A ONLY ON THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN USED ON ME.
Q 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?
A I HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT DONE.
Q 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?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND THEY ARE MANUFACTURED WITH A VACUUM INSIDE. THAT
IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED VACUTUBES, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SO THAT WHEN A NEEDLE IS STUCK INTO A VACUTAINER, IT
TENDS TO SUCK IN WHATEVER MIGHT BE IN THE SYRINGE, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, LET ME SHOW YOU THIS
EXHIBIT WHICH IS 1135?
THE COURT: 1135.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: I SHOWED YOU THAT I BELIEVE
YESTERDAY, DID I NOT?
A YES, YOU DID.
Q AND WE -- I GAVE YOU A MEASURING DEVICE SO THAT YOU
COULD VERIFY HOW MUCH CRANBERRY JUICE WAS IN THAT VIAL, DID I
NOT?
A YES.
Q AND WE VERIFIED THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT
MILLILITERS IN THAT VIAL, CORRECT?
A WHEN I POURED IT OFF AND MEASURED IT, I MEASURED 7
AND A HALF.
Q AND WE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SOME STILL IN THE
BOTTOM OF THE TUBE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SO THERE WAS 7 AND A HALF PLUS WHAT WAS IN THE BOTTOM
OF THE TUBE IN THAT VACUTAINER, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q NOW, YOU DESCRIBED THAT, I BELIEVE THE OTHER DAY, AS
A 10-MILLILITER TUBE, DIDN'T YOU?
A THAT WAS AN ASSUMPTION I HAD, YES.
Q IT ACTUALLY HOLDS, IF THE CAP IS OFF, A LOT MORE THAN
10 MILLILITERS, DOESN'T IT?
A YES.
Q IT HOLDS APPROXIMATELY 14?
A I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD WANT TO MEASURE IT.
Q 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?
A ACTUALLY, NOT TO THE TOP OF THE CAP, BUT TO THE TOP
OF THE GLASS PART OF THE TUBE.
Q NOW, EIGHT MILLILITERS OF BLOOD IN THAT TUBE WOULD
ESSENTIALLY LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE THAT, WOULD IT NOT?
A WELL, THE FACT THAT I MEASURED IT YESTERDAY, YES.
Q NOW, IS BLOOD HEAVIER OR LIGHTER THAN WATER?
A BLOOD IS SLIGHTLY HEAVIER.
Q DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW MUCH?
A NOT VERY MUCH AT ALL.
Q NOT VERY MUCH?
A THERE IS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE, THOUGH.
Q DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT VIAL WEIGHS?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q IT WEIGHS VERY LITTLE, DOESN'T IT?
THE COURT: THAT IS VAGUE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: CAN YOU ESTIMATE THE WEIGHT OF THAT
VIAL?
A NOT JUST BY FEELING IT, NO.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: WELL, YOU WOULD WANT TO TRANSPORT ANYTHING
CAREFULLY, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH A BIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE, SO YOU DON'T SPILL IT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU DON'T WANT TO BREAK IT EITHER,
DO YOU?
A NO.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK IT IS INAPPROPRIATE, NO.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A WELL, YOU --
Q WOULD YOU RECOMMEND DOING THAT?
A IT IS NOT A GREAT PROCEDURE, NO.
Q AND YOU HAVE JANITORS AT SID, CORRECT?
A YES, WE DO.
Q 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?
A YES, I BELIEVE SO.
Q 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?
A OKAY.
Q NOW, YOUR RECORDS INDICATE, DO THEY NOT, THAT ON
SEPTEMBER 14TH CRIMINALIST COLLIN YAMAUCHI WITHDREW APPROXIMATELY
ONE MILLILITER OF MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE BLOOD?
A I REMEMBER THAT REFERENCE, YES.
Q AND DO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE RECORD TO MAKE SURE OF
THAT?
A IT WOULD BE GOOD, YES.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU A SEROLOGY ITEM
DESCRIPTION NOTE.
A OKAY.
Q AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SAID, IS IT NOT?
A YES, IT IS, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLILITER.
Q NOW, ON JUNE 20TH BLOOD WAS WITHDRAWN FOR PURPOSES OF
DOING TOXICOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, CORRECT?
A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A
RECORD OF THAT.
MR. BLASIER: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU A TOXICOLOGY
DOCUMENT.
A OKAY.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOCUMENT AS A
REGULAR FORM THAT IS USED IN YOUR TOXICOLOGY UNIT?
A IT LOOKS FAMILIAR, YES.
Q THOSE ARE FILLED OUT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF
BUSINESS OF PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE TOXICOLOGY UNIT?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHO FILLED THAT OUT?
A 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.
Q THOSE ARE FILLED OUT DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF
CONDUCTING AN ANALYSIS, CORRECT?
A MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q THEY WERE FILLED OUT -- I'M SORRY, WERE YOU DONE?
A YES.
Q THOSE ARE FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THAT THE TESTING IS
DONE, CORRECT?
A MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THAT INDICATES THAT AS OF THE 20TH
THERE WERE 5.5 MILLILITERS IN THAT REFERENCE SAMPLE, CORRECT?
A THAT IS WHAT THE FORM INDICATES.
Q NOW, ON -- SOME POINT AROUND JUNE 27TH MR. YAMAUCHI
WITHDREW SOME SAMPLE FROM THE REFERENCE TUBE FOR PURPOSES OF
DOING ELECTROPHORETIC ANALYSIS, CORRECT?
A I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RECORD. I BELIEVE HE DID A
NOTATION OF HAVING REMOVED SOME PORTION OF THE BLOOD ON THE
25TH.
Q OKAY.
A OF JUNE.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU A RECORD -- WHAT IS A THREAD, BY THE
WAY?
A A THREAD IS A SMALL PORTION OF CLOTH.
Q JUST LIKE IT SOUNDS?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU USE THE TERM "A THREAD" IN THE CONTEXT
OF ELECTROPHORETIC ANALYSIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A 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.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, THIS DOES INDICATE THAT ON JUNE 27TH
SOME THREADS WERE PREPARED FOR ELECTROPHORESIS.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THAT IS YOUR NOTE?
A YES, THAT IS IN MY WRITING.
Q OF YOUR OBSERVATION OF THAT THREAD BEING REMOVED?
A WELL, THREADS, YES.
Q NOW, APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH BLOOD IS NECESSARY TO
MAKE A THREAD?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ON THE 25TH THE RECORDS INDICATE THAT THERE WAS
ANOTHER WITHDRAWAL FROM THE REFERENCE SAMPLE, CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q AND LET ME -- WOULD HAVING A RECORD OF THAT HELP YOU
-- HELP REFRESH YOUR MEMORY?
A 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF BLOOD
BEING WITHDRAWN APPROXIMATELY THE 25TH FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
ANALYSIS?
A I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT TIME, BUT I WAS MADE AWARE
OF IT.
Q AND YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE RECORDS ABOUT THAT, HAVE
YOU NOT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND WOULD IT -- YOU REMEMBER WHAT IS IN THE RECORD,
DON'T YOU, OR DO YOU?
A NOT EVERYTHING, NO.
Q WOULD IT HELP REFRESH YOUR MEMORY TO SEE THE RECORDS?
A YES, IT WOULD.
MR. BLASIER: MAY I SHOW HIM, YOUR HONOR?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, DOES THAT DOCUMENT APPEAR TO BE
A FORM DOCUMENT THAT IS USED IN YOUR LABORATORY?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND ARE THOSE FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THAT THE ACTIONS
DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ARE TAKEN?
A AT OR ABOUT THAT TIME, YES.
Q AND DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE FILLED OUT IN THE
APPROPRIATE MANNER?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING?
A YES.
Q WHOSE HANDWRITING IS IT?
A THE MAJORITY OF IT ON THE PAGE IS MR. YAMAUCHI'S.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: IT INDICATES THAT ON JUNE 25TH THERE WAS
APPROXIMATELY THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLILITER REMOVED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND THAT WAS FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A FOR I BELIEVE ABO TYPING AND SOME INITIAL
ELECTROPHORESIS WORK.
Q NOW, IS THERE ANY INDICATION ON THAT RECORD ABOUT AN
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT BEING WITHDRAWN FOR TOXICOLOGY?
A WELL, IT DOESN'T REFERENCE IT BEING REMOVED FOR
TOXICOLOGY.
Q WHAT DOES THAT REFERENCE?
A THAT REFERS TO THE QUANTITY OF BLOOD THAT IS PRESENT
IN A MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE THAT WAS WITH THE BLOOD VIAL.
Q NOW, A MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE, THAT IS A LITTLE TINY
TUBE THAT HAS ALMOST A POINTED BOTTOM, CORRECT?
A IT IS A PLASTIC TUBE, CORRECT, THAT HAS KIND OF A
CONICAL-SHAPED BOTTOM WITH A SNAP CAP ON THE TOP OR SCREW CAP.
Q THAT HOLDS ABOUT ONE AND A HALF MILLILITERS?
A YES.
Q 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?
A THAT WAS PACKAGED WITH IT, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HAVE -- YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT LITTLE
MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE, ARE YOU NOT?
A YES, I AM.
Q YOU HAVE SEEN IT AND YOU HAVE MEASURED IT, HAVEN'T
YOU?
A YES.
Q AND HOW MUCH BLOOD IS IN THAT MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE
NOW?
A AT THIS MOMENT?
Q YES.
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q HOW MUCH WAS IN IT WHEN YOU MEASURED IT?
A I WOULD HAVE TO REFERENCE ONE OF MY NOTES.
MR. BLASIER: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: TRYING TO LOCATE THE DATE IN WHICH ONE OF
THOSE DETERMINATIONS WAS MADE.
THE COURT: CAN YOU USE A STRAIGHT EDGE?
THE WITNESS: NO, THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THAT INDICATES WHAT?
A ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1994, THAT THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY
3.8 MILLILITERS TOTAL OF BLOOD.
Q 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?
A I WOULD WANT TO CONFIRM THAT.
MR. BLASIER: WHY DON'T YOU CHECK YOUR RECORDS.
THE WITNESS: (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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE THE TOTAL
AMOUNT TO BE?
A 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?
THE WITNESS: 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.)
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND LET ME SHOW YOU 1136-B. DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE
ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE SAME THING OF A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANGLE?
A 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. MATHESON, THAT IS THE
PHOTOGRAPH YOU IDENTIFIED AS MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE,
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT LITTLE TUBE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE
MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT?
A IT APPEARS TO BE, YES.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, THAT IS THE STANDARD QUANTITY FOR THOSE
TUBES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT DOES THE BUSINESS RECORD
INDICATE WAS REMAINING IN THAT MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE AS OF
APPROXIMATELY JUNE 25TH?
A WELL, ACCORDING TO MR. YAMAUCHI, HE PUT APPROXIMATELY
THREE QUARTERS ML'S OR MILLILITERS.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE BUSINESS RECORD THAT YOU HAVE IN
FRONT OF YOU?
A IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IS WHAT IT WAS FOR
IN THIS RECORD, NO.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A NO. 1477 ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT ENTRY?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q AND WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR, DO YOU KNOW?
A I BELIEVE IT IS A REFERENCE NUMBER IN TOXICOLOGY.
Q SO -- AND THAT IS A NUMBER THAT IS ASSIGNED TO A
SAMPLE OF BLOOD WHEN IT IS SENT FOR TOXICOLOGY, CORRECT?
A 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.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND IS THAT THE I.D. NUMBER OF THE
TECHNICIAN THAT DOES THE WORK GENERALLY?
A 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)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, LET ME SHOW YOU 1137.
DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VIAL?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND DO YOU SEE INITIALS ON THERE ON THAT VIAL, "W.F."
A I SEE INITIALS. IT IS NOT W.F.
Q WHAT IS IT?
A I BELIEVE IT IS L.M.F.
Q L.M.F. IS WHO?
A I BELIEVE THAT IS LISA FLAHERTY.
Q SHE IS THE PERSON THAT DOES TOXICOLOGY?
A SHE WORKS IN THAT UNIT, CORRECT.
Q THERE IS A NUMBER NEXT TO HER INITIALS?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q WHAT IS THAT NUMBER?
A 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.
Q I'M SORRY, I MEANT TELL US WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE.
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A I KNOW YOU WERE THERE, YES.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU 1136-B AGAIN.
DO YOU REMEMBER US TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS AND
MEASUREMENTS OF THE REFERENCE TUBE?
A YES, I DO.
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT ON THE SAME GROUNDS, FOUNDATION AND
DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR HAND IN THAT
PICTURE?
A I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS MY HAND. I DO REMEMBER
MANIPULATING THE VIAL.
Q OKAY.
IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT THAT IS MR.
SIMPSON'S REFERENCE BLOOD VIAL?
A NO, THERE IS NOT.
Q 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:)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, LET ME AGAIN SHOW YOU
--
THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET THE COURT REPORTER SIT DOWN.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I CAN.
Q AND DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE BLOOD
SMEARED ON THE PURPLE-TOPPED CAP IN THAT POSITION?
A THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE SMALL QUANTITIES OF BLOOD ON
THE CAP, YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU WITHDRAW BLOOD FROM A REFERENCE TUBE
SUCH AS THAT, YOU DON'T POUR IT OUT, DO YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU TAKE A PIPETTER AND PUT IT IN THE BLOOD, TAKE THE
BLOOD UP INTO THE PIPETTER AND THEN TAKE IT OUT, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO DO THAT PRESUMABLY
WITHOUT SPILLING THE BLOOD ALL OVER THE VIAL, CORRECT?
A OF COURSE YOU TRY AND BE AS CAREFUL AS POSSIBLE.
Q AND THAT IS THE STANDARD PROCEDURE THAT IS USED ANY
TIME A TRAINED PERSON LIKE YOURSELF REMOVES BLOOD FROM A VIAL
LIKE THAT, CORRECT?
A 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.)
Q BY 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?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS SEPTEMBER 21ST. YES, ON SEPTEMBER
21ST, APPROXIMATELY 3.8 MILLILITERS.
Q AND THAT INCLUDED THE BLOOD IN THE MICROCENTRIFUGE
TUBE, DIDN'T IT?
A YES, IT DID.
Q NOW, ON SEPTEMBER 30TH A SAMPLE OF THAT BLOOD WAS
RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE, CORRECT?
A I WILL CONFIRM THAT IN MY NOTES.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU A RECORD.
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLILITER WAS
RELEASED.
Q AND THOSE ARE YOUR NOTES MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE
OF YOUR WORK, CORRECT?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHEN YOU RELEASED THAT ONE MILLILITER TO THE
DEFENSE, YOU USED A GRADUATED PIPETTE, DID YOU NOT?
A WELL, I USED AN AUTOMATIC PIPETTER THAT DRAWS UP ONE
MILLILITER.
Q SO YOU CAN DETERMINE ONE MILLILITER FROM USING A
PIPETTE FAIRLY PRECISELY, CAN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q 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?
A APPROXIMATELY, YES.
Q AND YOU PROVIDED US WITH THE TOTAL MEASUREMENT OF MR.
SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE AT THAT TIME, DID YOU NOT?
A I BELIEVE I DID. I SEEM TO REMEMBER MAKING A COPY OF
SOMETHING.
Q 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.)
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q BUT YOU REVIEWED ALL THE NOTES IN PREPARATION OF YOUR
TESTIMONY, HAVEN'T YOU?
A I HAVE REVIEWED MANY NOTES, YES, IT IS QUITE
VOLUMINOUS.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, EVERY TIME SOMETHING
IS TAKEN OUT OF THAT REFERENCE TUBE, INITIALS ARE PUT ON THE
TUBE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A 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.
Q 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.
A OKAY. I SEE ONE AS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WAS L.M.F.
Q THAT WOULD BE FOR TOXICOLOGY, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q 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?
A SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: I APOLOGIZE. I THINK THIS MIGHT BE
EASIER.
IS THAT A BUSINESS RECORD IN YOUR HANDWRITING?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME ASK YOU:
DID YOU MAKE THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IN THE REGULAR
COURSE OF YOUR BUSINESS?
A YES, I DID.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WROTE IT DOWN AS YOU DID IT?
A 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: COULD LIST THEM IN CHRONOLOGICAL
ORDER, PLEASE?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS, YES.
Q AND THEY WRITE DOWN THE DATE THAT THEY DO THAT, DON'T
THEY?
A NORMALLY. IT IS NOT REQUIRED.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS THAT CORRECT?
A THEY SHOULDN'T, RIGHT.
Q OKAY.
WHAT ARE THE RECORDATIONS ON THAT BLOOD VIAL IN TERMS
OF PEOPLE HAVING ACCESS TO IT AND TAKING THINGS OUT OF IT?
A SO I SHOULD -- BECAUSE THERE ARE REFERENCES HERE THAT
ARE NOT FOR WHEN THINGS WERE TAKEN OUT.
Q OKAY.
WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND THEN WE WILL
PARE THEM DOWN.
A THE ONES THAT I SEE ON THIS RECORD IS THE J-1477
L.M.F.
Q WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT?
A THERE IS NO DATE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
Q OKAY.
A G.B.M., 6/27/94.
Q THAT IS YOU?
A 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.
Q NOW, THERE ARE ALSO MARKINGS ON THE ENVELOPE THAT THE
TUBE IS CONTAINED IN, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THEY ALSO INDICATE WHEN PEOPLE INITIAL ON THAT
ENVELOPE, CORRECT?
A THAT IS SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS HERE, YES.
Q AND TELL US WHAT THOSE ENTRIES ARE.
A 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."
Q IS THAT IN YOUR HANDWRITING -- I'M SORRY, THAT IS THE
ENTRY THAT YOU MADE, IS IT NOT?
A 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."
Q NOW, GOING BACK TO THE TUBE -- YOUR HONOR, COULD I
PUT THAT ON THE ELMO, PLEASE?
THE COURT: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT, ALONG WITH THE NO. 18.
Q 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?
A WELL, I BELIEVE THAT ONE MILLILITER WAS FOR
SWATCHING, YES.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: THAT ENTRY IS NO LONGER VISIBLE ON THIS
SCREEN, BUT YES, IT CORRESPONDS TO THAT TIME.
Q BY 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?
A THAT I DIDN'T RECORD THE QUANTITY THAT WAS REMOVED,
THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
AND DID YOU MAKE ANY RECORDATION AT ALL ABOUT WORK
THAT YOU DID ON THE BLOOD THAT YOU REMOVED ON THAT DATE?
A THERE WAS AN ANALYTICAL NOTES, YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES HERE?
A YES, I DO.
MR. BLASIER: COULD I TAKE A LOOK AT THEM?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT BLOOD
ANALYSIS WORK SHEET WAS FILLED OUT BY COLLIN YAMAUCHI, NOT
YOURSELF?
A ACTUALLY WE BOTH HAVE ENTRIES ON HERE.
Q OKAY.
SO YOU BOTH DID THAT SAME WORK AT THE SAME TIME?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A THERE IS AN ENTRY OF THE WORK THAT HE DID, BUT THERE
IS NO QUANTITY MENTIONED FOR THE WORK THAT I DID.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: THE FACT THAT BLOOD WAS REMOVED IS IMPLIED BY
THE FACT THAT I DID WORK ON IT AND RECEIVED RESULTS FROM IT.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IS THERE A REASON TO MAKE ANY
NOTATION?
A THERE IS NOTATION IN THAT WORK WAS DONE ON IT AND
RESULTS WERE OBTAINED.
Q NOW, I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT THAT PARTICULAR
WITHDRAWAL WAS APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLILITER, CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE I GAVE A RANGE, THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN
>FROM A HALF TO ONE.
Q AND HOW MUCH ACTUAL BLOOD DO YOU NEED TO USE FOR THE
TESTING THAT YOU DID? IT IS NOT VERY MUCH, IS IT?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
NOW, SO THE TESTING TAKES I THINK ABOUT SIX PLUS --
SIX DROPS TOTAL?
A PROBABLY SIX TO EIGHT, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
Q AND THERE ARE HOW MANY DROPS IN A MILLILITER,
APPROXIMATELY?
A APPROXIMATELY 20.
Q NOW, YOU -- THE BLOOD THAT YOU DIDN'T USE FOR THAT
PARTICULAR WITHDRAWAL, YOU PUT BACK, DIDN'T YOU?
A NOT NECESSARILY.
Q 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?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU RECALL TELLING HIM THAT YOU PUT THE BLOOD
BACK?
A I BELIEVE I SAID I THOUGHT I DID, YES.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANY KIND OF TEST TO DETERMINE
HOW MUCH WOULD CLING TO THE TUBE?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A OKAY.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND THE ONLY WITHDRAWAL FROM MR.
SIMPSON'S BLOOD BETWEEN THE 13TH AND THE 20TH WAS MR. YAMAUCHI'S
ONE MILLILITER, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY DROPS ARE
IN 1.5 MILLILITERS?
A WELL, IF WE ASSUME THAT THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 20 IN
A MILLILITER, THAT WOULD GIVE US ABOUT THIRTY DROPS.
Q 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?
A DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE SWATCH, SURE.
Q YOU COULD ACTUALLY MAKE MORE THAN FIVE, CORRECT?
A YOU CAN MAKE FOUR AND YOU CAN MAKE LESS, YES, OR
MORE.
Q SO TO -- I'M SORRY?
A DEPENDS ON THE SIZE, YES, YOU COULD EITHER MAKE MORE
OR YOU COULD MAKE LESS.
Q 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?
A GIVEN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, YES.
Q NOW, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT THAT BLOOD THAT
IS COLLECTED IN A VACUTAINER HAS A PRESERVATIVE IN IT CALLED
EDTA, CORRECT?
A IN THIS PARTICULAR TUBE, YES.
Q AND THAT IS A CHEMICAL THAT IS PUT IN THERE TO KEEP
THE BLOOD FROM COAGULATING, CORRECT?
A IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU AWARE OF PROCEDURES
AVAILABLE CALLED GAS CHROMATOGRAPH MASS SPECTROMETRY TO DETERMINE
THE PRESENCE OF THAT CHEMICAL?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: THE ONLY INFORMATION I HAVE REGARDING THAT
QUANTITY WAS WHAT I HEARD DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND THAT WAS FROM THE NURSE WHO DREW
IT, CORRECT?
MR. GOLDBERG: THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOUR RECORDS INDICATE -- THE BUSINESS RECORDS
INDICATE THAT ON JUNE 14TH, COLLIN YAMAUCHI WITHDREW
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLILITER, CORRECT?
A APPROXIMATELY, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.)
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW -- NOW, THE TOXICOLOGY RECORDS THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT INDICATED THAT AS OF JUNE 20TH, THERE WAS 5.5 MILLILITERS
REMAINING, CORRECT?
A APPROXIMATELY ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS, YES.
Q 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?
A THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: 1.5 MILLILITERS LESS IN THAT TUBE
THAN YOU WOULD EXPECT?
A APPROXIMATELY, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU MEAN SOME OF THE
TUBE OR SOME OF THE BLOOD IN THE TUBE?
Q 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?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THERE'S STILL SOME BLOOD IN THAT MICRO CENTRIFUGE
TUBE, CORRECT?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q AND THAT ORIGINALLY AS A MAXIMUM WOULD HAVE HELD 1.5
MILLILITERS, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND ACCORDING TO MR. YAMAUCHI'S NOTES, HE ESTIMATED
THAT THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILL LEFT,
CORRECT?
A THAT'S WHAT HE RECORDED, YES.
Q NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT, THEREFORE, TOXICOLOGY
WOULD HAVE USED APPROXIMATELY, AT A MAXIMUM, ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS
OF A MILLILITER?
A AT A MAXIMUM, YES.
Q NOW, IF WE REMOVE THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLILITER,
WE'RE NOW DOWN TO ROUGHLY 6.2, 6.3; WOULD YOU AGREE?
A APPROXIMATELY, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, THE NEXT WITHDRAWAL WAS MR. YAMAUCHI ON THE 25TH
FOR PURPOSES OF ABO TYPING AND OTHER SEROLOGICAL TYPING, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND HIS RECORDS INDICATE THAT HE TOOK APPROXIMATELY
75, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THIS IS APPROXIMATELY .05. WOULD
THAT LOOK LIKE APPROXIMATELY .05? VERY SMALL AMOUNT, ISN'T IT?
A IN RELATION TO THE REST OF YOUR BARS, YES, IT IS.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ON THE 27TH OR THEREABOUTS, MR.
YAMAUCHI TOOK AN EXTREMELY SMALL AMOUNT FOR A THREAD FOR
ELECTROPHORESIS, CORRECT?
A HE PREPARED THREADS FOR ELECTROPHORESIS, THAT'S
CORRECT.
Q AND THAT REQUIRES ALMOST NOTHING, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE ONE MILLILITER
IN SEPTEMBER, CORRECT?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S IN -- AND THERE ARE RECORDS OF THAT; ARE
THERE NOT?
A THEY WERE GIVEN APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLILITER, THAT'S
CORRECT.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT AT SOME POINT, YOU TOOK OUT
SOME BLOOD, BUT THE AMOUNT IS NOT REFLECTED IN ANY BUSINESS
RECORD ANYWHERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q OKAY.
THE ONLY THING REMAINING IS THE ONE THAT YOU DIDN'T
WRITE THE AMOUNT DOWN, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A GOING OFF THAT ASSUMPTION, YES.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: UNACCOUNTED FOR BY THE BUSINESS
RECORDS.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S STILL ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, GIVEN THE HYPOTHETICAL.
Q 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?
A AS I'M SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT, THAT SOUNDS
CORRECT.
Q AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU STARTED WITH A HALF TO ONE
MILLILITER, THAT'S YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION?
A I WOULD SAY I USED A MINIMUM OF A HALF MILL AND IT
COULD BE AS HIGH AS ONE.
Q AND ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAD TOLD US BEFORE, YOU
DON'T RECALL IT NOW, BUT YOU PUT IT BACK?
A WELL, I REMEMBER MAKING THAT COMMENT.
Q I'M SORRY. WHAT YOU DIDN'T USE.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU USED APPROXIMATELY SIX TO EIGHT DROPS?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHY I GAVE THE LOW END OF
BEING A .5 MILLILITER.
Q 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?
A IT'S A ROUGH APPROXIMATION. IT'S POSSIBLE.
Q NOW -- AND THE SEVEN OR -- SIX OR EIGHT DROPS
ACCOUNTS FOR APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH?
A AS FAR AS --
Q HOW MANY MILLILITERS?
A WELL, IF WE'RE USING 20 AS AN APPROXIMATION, THE
NUMBER DROPS PER MILL, THAT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF A
MILLILITER.
Q LITTLE MORE THAN A QUARTER?
A YES.
Q 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?
A IN THAT INSTANCE, YES. THAT WOULD BE AN
APPROXIMATION.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q WITH THE OTHER ENTRIES, WITHDRAWALS THAT YOUR PEOPLE
DID, THOSE ARE ESTIMATES AND COULD BE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN A
MILLILITER, CORRECT?
A THEY ARE APPROXIMATIONS, YES. THEY COULD BE EITHER
SLIGHTLY LESS OR SLIGHTLY MORE.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I DO.
Q 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR COLLECTING THEM, YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THERE WERE SCRAPINGS TAKEN FROM BOTH HANDS UNDER
ALL THE FINGERNAILS ON EACH HAND, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE USED TO DESIGNATE THOSE
ARE 84-A AND B, CORRECT?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND 84-A IS WHICH HAND?
A REFERRING TO MY ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT THAT LISTS
THOSE ITEMS, 84-A IS THE LEFT HAND SCRAPINGS, 84-B IS THE RIGHT
HAND SCRAPINGS.
Q 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?
A THAT'S WHAT THE RESULTS WERE, YES.
Q AND THERE WAS NO ONE IN THIS CASE THAT YOU HAVE
IDENTIFIED THAT HAS AN EAP TYPE B, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q MR. SIMPSON DOESN'T HAVE AN EAP TYPE B, DOES HE?
A NO, HE DOES NOT.
Q 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?
A IF THE B IS AN ACTUAL B, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: ALONG -- THAT'S CORRECT, ALONG WITH AN
EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY 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?
A NO, IT IS NOT.
Q THERE'S ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY YOUR
REPORT, CORRECT?
A NO. THIS IS A REPORT ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET
OF ITEMS.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN SHOWN YOUR REPORT ON THE FINGERNAILS?
A 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.
THE WITNESS: 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)
Q BY 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?
A IT IS A COPY OF IT, YES, WITH SOME AREAS THAT HAVE
BEEN BLACKED OUT.
Q NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 218.
WHAT IS THAT?
A THIS IS THE THIRD PAGE OR A COPY OF THE THIRD PAGE OF
THAT ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: HAVE YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT PAGE 2 OF
THAT DOCUMENT AT ALL YET IN THIS PROCEEDING?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE 2, PLEASE, FOR
ME.
(WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW --
THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY, "THAT DOCUMENT," ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT 1140?
MR. BLASIER: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY 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?
A THERE ARE ELECTROPHORESIS WORK SHEETS, YES.
Q 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND AFTER YOU DO THAT, YOU PREPARE A FINAL REPORT
>FROM THOSE BENCH NOTES, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q AND THE SUMMARY SHEET IS YOUR FINAL READING OF
TYPING FOR TESTS THAT YOU'VE DONE, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, YOU'VE SEEN THAT CHART
BEFORE. YOU'VE TESTIFIED ABOUT IT, CORRECT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND IN THAT CHART, IT'S INDICATED THAT -- BY THE WAY,
WHO PREPARED THIS CHART?
A IT WAS PREPARED BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE.
Q YOU DIDN'T PREPARE IT, DID YOU?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q ITEM NO. 42 IS THE SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE AREA UNDER
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU PREPARED
AFTER YOUR ANALYSIS, YOU DETERMINED THAT ITEM 42 WAS
INCONCLUSIVE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OR MEANING OF
THE TERM "INCONCLUSIVE"?
A INCONCLUSIVE TO ME MEANS THAT THERE'S NOT A
CONCLUSIVE DECISION OR CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT THAT CAN BE MADE
ABOUT THE RESULTS.
Q ISN'T IT -- DOESN'T IT MEAN SCIENTIFICALLY THAT YOU
CAN MAKE NO STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE STAIN WHEN IT'S
INCONCLUSIVE?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, ON YOUR FINAL REPORT, WHEN YOU
REPORTED YOUR FINDINGS ON 84-A AND B, DOES YOUR REPORT SAY B
ASTERISK?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q IT SAYS B, DOESN'T IT?
A YES.
Q IT SAYS B FOR BOTH THE LEFT HAND AND THE RIGHT HAND,
DOESN'T IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE ALL OF MY RESULTS ARE ACCURATE.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE A B, DOESN'T IT?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IN YOUR OPINION,
SOMETIMES SOMETHING ELSE CAN LOOK LIKE A B THAT ISN'T A B,
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S A BA, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU SAW A B, DIDN'T YOU?
A YES, I DID.
Q NOW, HOW LONG HAS THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
BEEN USING THE EAP SYSTEM?
A 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.
Q 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?
A I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK MY RECORD AND SEE IF I MADE AN
ESTIMATION OF THAT.
Q SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
A AND I WOULD SAY THAT I HAVE RUN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN,
OH, PROBABLY 14-, 1500 AND ABOUT 2,000 ITEMS FOR THAT MARKER.
Q AND AN EAP TYPE B IS A FAIRLY COMMON TYPE, ISN'T IT?
A I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.
Q SO CAN YOU GIVE US -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
THE POPULATION IS A B?
A I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ANOTHER CHART THAT I HAVE.
Q WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE WITNESS: ACCORDING TO OUR STATISTICS THAT WE USE,
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 50 PERCENT OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN COURT BEFORE ABOUT EAP
RESULTS THAT HAVE COME BACK AS A B?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q IN ALL OF THOSE REPORTS, DO YOU WRITE DOWN, "YOU
KNOW, IT COULD BE A BA"?
A NOT IN ALL THOSE REPORTS, NO. I DO INCLUDE THAT
DISCLAIMER WHEN THE EAP IS A SOURCE OF ELIMINATION OR EXCLUSION
IN A SAMPLE.
Q 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?
A LIKE I JUST MENTIONED, I WILL PUT THAT IT'S A B
UNLESS IT'S AN EXCLUSION OF SOME TYPE.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q 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".
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, YES.
Q 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?
A NO. I BELIEVE THE OTHER REASON THAT I USE IS
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN BOTH THIS CASE AND OTHER CASES.
Q DID YOU NOT USE THE EXAMPLE OF 42 AS WELL?
A YES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION ON THIS
PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
Q HAD YOU EVER WRITTEN ANY PAPERS OR PUBLISHED ANYTHING
ON EAP SYSTEMS?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q 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?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. MATHESON, WHEN YOU CONDUCT
AN EAP TEST, THE FINAL PRODUCT OF THAT TEST IS WHAT'S CALLED AN
ELECTROPHORETOGRAM, CORRECT?
A IT'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ELECTROPHORESIS RUN, YES.
Q AND THAT'S A PICTURE OF WHERE THE BANDS ENDED UP ON
THE GEL AFTER YOU DID THE TEST, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S EITHER AN A, A B OR A C?
A THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE --
Q I'M SORRY.
A OTHER COMMON TYPES, YES.
Q THERE ARE A COUPLE RARE TYPES THAT ARE ALMOST NEVER
FOUND?
A THERE ARE MANY RARES, YES.
Q FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE FIELD IS LIMITED TO
AN A, A B OR A C?
A CORRECT.
Q NOW, IF SOMEONE INHERITED THE B CHARACTERISTIC FROM
BOTH PARENTS, THEN THEY WOULD APPEAR AS A B?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IF SOMEONE INTERPRETED THE A CHARACTERISTIC FROM
BOTH PARENTS, THEY WOULD BE AN A?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND IF SOMEONE INHERITED AN A FROM MOM AND A B FROM
DAD, THEY WOULD BE A BA?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S BASICALLY HOW IT WORKS, AND THE SAME THING
WOULD APPLY IF YOU GOT A C FROM ONE OF YOUR PARENTS?
A YES.
Q 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?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE FACTORS IN THIS, YES.
Q AND YOU'VE SEEN -- YOU'VE SEEN THESE SLIDES BEFORE.
WE LOOKED AT THESE YESTERDAY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND THE SLIDE THAT'S UP THERE NOW IS A -- IS YOUR
ELECTROPHORETOGRAM FOR RUN NUMBER 7310, CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF
THAT SLIDE?
A YES.
Q 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?
A WELL, THAT'S CORRECT, YES. SOME THINGS MAY NOT SHOW
UP AS WELL BEING PROJECTED LIKE THIS AND LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL
PHOTOGRAPH.
Q AND WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS, SO WE CAN LOOK
AT THOSE AT SOME POINT, CORRECT?
A YES. I HAVE THEM HERE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW --
MR. BLASIER: COULD WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, I'VE DRAWN A BOX AROUND A BAND
-- OR I'M SORRY -- A LANE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS
ELECTROPHORETOGRAM, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED A STANDARD. IN OTHER
WORDS, YOU KNEW WHAT THIS WAS BEFORE YOU TESTED IT, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU KNEW THIS WAS A BA?
A THAT'S TRUE.
Q 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?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, YES.
Q NOW, THIS PARTICULAR LANE IN THE MIDDLE, THIS BA
STANDARD, CAME BACK THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO, DIDN'T IT?
A THAT'S A TYPICAL LOOKING BA, YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AND --
MR. BLASIER: LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THIS SLIDE'S C? C.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, I'VE DRAWN BOXES AROUND THE
VARIOUS BANDS IN THAT STANDARD, AND THERE ARE FOUR BANDS,
CORRECT?
A YES, THERE ARE.
MR. BLASIER: GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE DESIGNATIONS FOR THEM, YES.
MR. BLASIER: CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE?
Q BY 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?
A YES.
Q THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IF SOMEBODY IS A B, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE TWO
BANDS, ONE AT B-1, ONE AT B-2, CORRECT?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YOU -- WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IF
YOU SAW THAT PARTICULAR BANDING PATTERN DEPICTED ON SLIDE F,
THAT'S A BA?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.
THE -- YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THE INTENSITY OF A BAND
MIGHT AFFECT THE READING, CORRECT?
A IT DEFINITELY DOES AFFECT THE READING, YES.
Q NOW, C BANDS, WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS DIAGRAM,
CORRESPOND IN POSITION TO THE B BANDS, DON'T THEY?
A YES, THEY DO.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT. THE TWO C BANDS RUN THE SAME
DISTANCE AS THE B BANDS.
Q 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?
A WELL, NOT ONE OF THE WAYS. "THE WAY" --
Q "THE WAY."
A -- IS TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE -- LOOK AT THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE INTENSITIES OR BRIGHTNESSES OF THE BANDS.
Q NOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPARING AN A AND A B,
HOWEVER, NONE OF THOSE BANDS OVERLAP, DO THEY?
A NO, THEY DO NOT.
Q SO IF YOUR UNIVERSE IS LIMITED TO AN A OR A B, BAND
INTENSITY IS IRRELEVANT, CORRECT?
A NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
Q WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF BAND INTENSITY ON TELLING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN A AND A B?
A 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 --
Q OKAY.
A -- YOU EXPECT TO SEE INTENSITIES IN CERTAIN WAYS, AS
FAR AS THE RESULT GOES.
Q BUT AS FAR AS DISTINGUISHING AN A FROM A B, IT'S
IRRELEVANT?
A THE INTENSITIES, THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: NOW, MAY WE HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, THIS IS THE PATTERN YOU WOULD
EXPECT TO SEE WITH A TYPE B, CORRECT?
A AGAIN, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE B-2 IS THE MORE
INTENSE AND WOULD BE LARGER AND THE B-1 IS LESS INTENSE.
Q OKAY.
BUT IN TERMS OF RELATIVE POSITION, THAT'S CORRECT,
ISN'T IT?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, THAT'S TRUE.
MR. BLASIER: NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THAT'S I.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, MR. MATHESON, THIS IS A PICTURE
OF THE ELECTROPHORETOGRAM THAT CONTAINS THE FINGERNAILS; IS IT
NOT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q NOW, THIS HAS A LOT OF LITTLE DOTS AND THINGS ON IT
THAT ARE EXTRANEOUS RESULTS THAT SOMETIMES COME UP IN THESE
TESTS, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. THE DOTS, THE ROUND DOTS THAT YOU
SEE ARE NOT RELATED TO THE EAP OR THE INFORMATION FROM THE
SAMPLES.
Q AND THE SCIENTIFIC TERM FOR THAT IS SCHMUTZ, ISN'T
IT?
A ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD THAT TERM, BUT --
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
MR. SCHECK TOLD ME.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS J.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, I'VE CIRCLED OR BOXED THREE
LANES OF THAT ELECTROPHORETOGRAM, CORRECT?
A YES, YOU HAVE.
Q AND THE LANE ON THE RIGHT OF THE BOX IS YOUR BA
STANDARD LANE, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THE TWO LANES NEXT TO IT TO THE LEFT ARE 84-A
AND 84-B, CORRECT?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW I'M GOING TO ISOLATE JUST THOSE
THREE BANDS, CORRECT?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: AND THAT'S SLIDE K.
NOW LET'S GO TO L.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, I'VE DRAWN BOXES AROUND THE
BANDS IN THEIR APPROXIMATE POSITIONS, CORRECT?
A THE APPROXIMATE POSITION, YES.
Q 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?
A WELL, IT WAS QUITE A BIT BOWED AT ONE POINT, YES.
Q QUITE A BIT.
AND THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES AS A FUNCTION OF THE WAY
THE TEST IS DONE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q IT DOESN'T INVALIDATE THE TEST, DOES IT?
A NO.
Q 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?
A YOU CAN SOMETIMES, YES.
Q NOW, THE BANDS THAT I BOXED THERE ARE SLIGHTLY OUT OF
LINE WITH THE STANDARD BECAUSE THE ELECTROPHORETOGRAM WAS BOWED A
LITTLE BIT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q 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?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: IN THE --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW -- I'M SORRY?
A 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.
Q BUT THOSE ARE THE BANDS THAT ARE THERE?
A 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: MR. MATHESON, ON --
MR. BLASIER: THIS IS SLIDE O.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: PART OF YOUR TESTIMONY THE OTHER DAY
CONCERNED THE MANNER IN WHICH A BA CAN DEGRADE, CORRECT?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q NOW, IF YOU HAVE A BA, YOU WOULD HAVE THE BANDING
PATTERN THAT WE HAVE UP ON SLIDE S, CORRECT?
A AGAIN, NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INTENSITY
DIFFERENCES, BUT THAT'S THE LOCATIONS OF THE BANDS.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A I WAS DIRECTED TO THAT, YES.
Q THERE IS OTHER LITERATURE ON THE EAP SYSTEMS,
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT OTHER LITERATURE; ARE
YOU NOT?
A I'VE READ SOME OF THEM, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT ARTICLES THE OTHER DAY; WERE YOU NOT?
A NO, I WAS NOT.
Q OH.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN ARTICLE BY DR. GEORGE
SENSABAUGH ENTITLED "THE UTILIZATION OF POLYMORPHIC ENZYMES IN
FORENSIC SCIENCE"?
A I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, PLEASE.
Q SURE.
A I HAVE SEEN THIS, YES.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: SO IT'S ONE THAT YOU HAVE CONSIDERED
AND REFERRED TO?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A I HAVE DONE SOME READING ON THAT, YES.
Q WHAT THINGS DID YOU READ?
A 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.
Q WHAT ARTICLES DID YOU READ?
A IF I COULD -- I THINK A REFERENCE WOULD GIVE YOU A
COUPLE OF THEM.
Q YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHEN YOU SAY I SHOWED YOU AN
ARTICLE, THAT'S IT, ISN'T IT?
A 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.
Q 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"?
A I READ THAT ONE THE OTHER DAY, YES.
Q AND AM I HANDING YOU WHAT APPEARS TO BE THAT ARTICLE?
A YES, IT APPEARS TO BE.
Q 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"?
A AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: THIS ONE DOES NOT LOOK FAMILIAR TO ME.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THIS?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY 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.
A YES, IT APPEARS TO BE.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: IN PREPARATION FOR THIS CASE.
A I BELIEVE I MENTIONED TWO OTHER REFERENCES, SOMETHING
THAT IS COMMONLY CALLED "SOURCE BOOK" AND ANOTHER TEXTBOOK BY
SAFERSTEIN.
Q NOW, I WAS TALKING ABOUT ARTICLES DEVOTED TO THAT
TOPIC SPECIFICALLY RATHER THAN TEXTBOOKS.
A OH, I'M SORRY.
TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THAT'S IT.
Q OKAY.
WHAT DO THOSE ARTICLES SAY ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH A
BA DEGRADES?
A RATE BEING THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES OR --
Q NO. WHICH BANDS DISAPPEAR FIRST?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE ARTICLES WE'RE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S STILL OVERBROAD.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A ACCORDING TO THOSE ARTICLES, THAT'S THE DEGRADATION
ROUTE THAT THEY HAVE SEEN.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: THAT'S THE GENERAL ROUTE THAT THOSE ARTICLES
REFERENCE, YES.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS WHAT? Q? U.
Q BY 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?
A UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT THOSE STUDIES WERE RUN IN,
YES, THAT IS THE GENERAL ROUTE OF DEGRADATION.
Q NOW, THOSE STUDIES FURTHER INDICATE, DO THEY NOT,
THAT THE NEXT THING TO GO WHEN IT DEGRADES IS THE A-1 BAND,
CORRECT?
A THAT'S THE GENERAL ROUTE OF THAT FORM OF DEGRADATION,
YES.
MR. BLASIER: NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IS IT P?
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A AND WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ARTICLES AT THIS
POINT?
Q YES.
A NO, I CAN NOT.
Q I THINK YOU SAID ALSO --
MR. BLASIER: YOU CAN TURN THAT OFF NOW.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THEY ALL SAY THAT, THEREFORE, YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE
ANY READING AT ALL IF ALL YOU HAVE IS ONE B-1 BAND, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ALL SAY THAT, NO.
Q CAN YOU CITE -- SHOW ME ONE THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT?
A 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A NO, THEY DON'T.
Q DO THEY ALL SAY THAT YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY CALL AT
ALL IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE BAND?
A IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q NOW, I WANTED -- YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT ITEM 42 HAD
THE SAME APPEARANCE, THE SAME READING AS THE FINGERNAILS,
CORRECT?
A 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?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YOU RECOGNIZE SLIDE A UP THERE
AS BEING THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE STANDARD?
A YES, I DO.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES. ADJACENT TO THE OTHER STANDARD.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH.
DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT SAME
ELECTROPHORETOGRAM?
A YES, IT DOES. IT APPEARS TO BE AN ENLARGEMENT OF IT.
Q AND ITEM 42 APPEARS IN THAT ELECTROPHORETOGRAM AS IT
DOES IN THE SLIDE ON THE PROJECTOR, CORRECT?
A IT WAS IN THE SAME LOCATION IN THE -- IT'S MUCH
EASIER TO READ IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU CAN SEE SOME VERY, VERY FAINT
BANDING PATTERNS UNDER 42 THAT DOESN'T COMPLETELY SHOW UP IN THE
SLIDE, CORRECT?
A 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 --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
WE CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER THIS WAY; WOULD YOU
AGREE?
A A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WELL --
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: RIGHT ABOUT THERE (INDICATING)?
A WELL, THERE IS SOME FLORESCENCE IN THAT AREA. IT'S
NOT EVEN REALLY WHAT I WOULD CALL A BAND.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE FAINT MARKINGS YOU SEE IN LANE
42.
A IT WAS CALLED INCONCLUSIVE, RIGHT, BECAUSE THE BANDS
THAT I VISUALIZED IN THERE JUST WERE NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL
CLEAR-CUT BANDS.
Q AND LET ME SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FINGERNAIL
SLIDE.
DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A SIMILAR PHOTOGRAPH?
A 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.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YOU SEE THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT WE HAVE ON THE PROJECTOR?
A YES, I DO.
Q 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?
A I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
Q YEAH. THE LIGHT THAT I'M USING ON THE LARGE
PROJECTOR UP ABOVE YOU IS THE 42 LANE, CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THOSE ARE THE BANDING PATTERNS FROM
THE FINGERNAILS, CORRECT?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: AND COULD WE PUT AN ARROW OVER BY 42 AS
WELL? CAN WE AFFIX ONE THERE?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE BANDING
PATTERNS FOR 84-A AND B ARE MUCH MORE DISTINCTIVE THAN 42?
A YES.
Q AND THAT'S WHY YOU READ 84-A AND B AND DID NOT REPORT
ANYTHING OTHER THAN INCONCLUSIVE FOR 42?
A 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE
LIKE WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MENTIONED THAT IS USED IN THE
TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF EVERYTHING.
Q BY 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?
A YES.
Q SO THOSE TWO WERE NOT UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS IN
TERMS OF DRYING OR BEING IN A POOL OF BLOOD, WERE THEY?
A NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, NO.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. COULD YOU READ THAT OR REPEAT
THAT, PLEASE?
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q AND IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN IT HAS TO HAVE COME FROM
SOMEBODY ELSE, CORRECT?
MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A I WOULD NOT REPORT THEM IF THEY WERE WRONG OR
AMBIGUOUS.
Q IF YOU THOUGHT THAT THE RESULTS WERE WRONG, WOULD YOU
REDO THE TEST?
A DEPENDS ON WHAT OTHER TESTS WERE AVAILABLE TO ME.
Q 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?
A YOU'RE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THE SAME THING, BUT
THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOTHING THAT YOU DO OTHER THAN AN EAP TEST IS GOING
TO GIVE YOU AN EAP READING, CORRECT?
A WELL, THAT'S CORRECT, YES. I MEAN, ONLY AN EAP TEST
IS GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EAP RESULT.
Q SO THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD DOUBLE-CHECK THAT EAP
TEST WOULD BE TO DO ANOTHER EAP TEST, CORRECT?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AT SOME POINT, YOU SENT THEM TO DOJ
AND THEY SENT THEM BACK, DIDN'T THEY?
A YES, THAT'S TRUE.
Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR THEM SENDING IT BACK?
A 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.
Q DID YOU EVER CONSIDER DOING A RETEST OF THOSE
FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS, AN EAP TEST, TO SEE WHETHER YOUR ORIGINAL
RESULTS WERE WRONG?
A DID I CONSIDER IT?
Q YES.
A I CONSIDERED IT, YES.
Q YOU WANTED TO DO IT, DIDN'T YOU?
A 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.
Q SO YOU'VE DONE NO RETESTING TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER
THIS EAP IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A B OR SOMEONE OTHER THAN MR.
SIMPSON, CORRECT?
A 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:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MATHESON.
A HELLO.
MR. GOLDBERG: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I DO.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT YOU ALLUDED TO SOME BOOK THAT YOU LOOKED AT?
A YES, I DID.
Q NOW, WHY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION DIDN'T YOU TELL THE
DEFENSE ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THIS BOOK?
A I WASN'T ASKED ABOUT IT. I WAS LIMITED TO THE
ARTICLES.
Q YOU MEAN BY THE QUESTIONING?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q IS THIS ONE OF THE ARTICLES, SIR, THAT YOU CONSIDERED
PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY?
A IT IS ONE OF THE ONES I READ, YES.
Q 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?
A YES, IT DID.
Q NOW, ON THESE STAINS THAT WERE STUDIED IN THIS
PARTICULAR ARTICLE, WERE THESE STAINS IN A WET CONDITION OR IN A
DRY LABORATORY CONDITION?
A I BELIEVE THEY WERE DRY.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: IF THE BLOOD WAS TACKY OR DAMP, THEN THAT
WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SET OF CONDITIONS.
Q BY 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?
A THERE WAS WHAT APPEARED TO BE SMEARING ON IT THAT
WOULD INDICATE THAT IT WAS STILL DAMP.
Q 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?
A WELL, IT IS DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.
Q BUT WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT FORENSICALLY ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF DEGRADATION?
A 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.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY, I DON'T --
Q BY 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?
A "THIS" MEANING THE WHOLE ARTICLE?
Q YES.
A 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.
Q AND IS THAT HOW YOU INTERPRETED THE ARTICLE OVERALL?
A YES.
Q 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?
A YES, THEY DID.
Q AND I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO OUR
EAP BOARD SO MAYBE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
NOW, LET'S TAKE THIS STEP-BY-STEP. YOU USED THE TERM
"ANODAL." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A THAT IS AN ELECTRICAL TERM THAT HAS REFERENCE TO THE
POSITIVE SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE NEGATIVE SIDE, WHICH IS CATHODAL.
Q LOOKING AT OUR EAP PHENOTYPE BOARD, THE BLOCK
DIAGRAMS THAT WE USED, CAN YOU TELL US WHICH IS THE ANODAL SIDE
OF THE DIAGRAM?
A 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.)
Q BY 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?
A THE DEGRADATION ROUTE, LIKE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED ON
CROSS --
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q AND THAT IS THE DEGRADATION ROUTE THAT WAS DESCRIBED
IN THIS WRAXALL AND EMES?
A YES, UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAD THOSE
SAMPLES.
Q NOW, SIR, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A SEROLOGIST, AND
ALSO BASED UPON YOUR READING OF THE LITERATURE, IS THAT THE ONLY
DEGRADATION ROUTE?
A NO, IT IS NOT.
Q 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?
A THE ONE I DESCRIBED EARLIER, YES.
Q BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY ONE?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND IS THIS AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT AFTER THE ONE
THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, THE WRAXALL AND EMES ARTICLE?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q 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"?
A YES, IT IS.
Q NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE ON
PAGE 615 --
THE COURT: THIS IS ZAJAC?
MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH.
Q -- DID THEY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE WRAXALL AND EMES
ARTICLE THAT YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WE
JUST DISCUSSED?
A YES, I BELIEVE IT DOES.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU READ FOR US WHAT THEY SAID IN ORDER TO
DISTINGUISH WRAXALL AND EMES FROM THEIR ARTICLE?
A 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."
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IN THE ARTICLE WHAT DID THEY
SAY? WHAT KIND OF STAINS WERE THEY DEALING WITH HERE?
A 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."
Q 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?
A I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED THERE.
Q 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?
A 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."
Q OKAY. AND HOW DID YOU INTERPRET THAT, MR. MATHESON?
A WELL, AGAIN, THAT THE SYSTEM HAS DEGRADATION PROBLEMS
AND THAT MULTIPLE BANDS CAN BE READ STILL AND MISINTERPRETED.
Q YOU MEAN EVEN IF YOU HAVE DISCREET BAND PATTERNS SUCH
AS TWO B BANDS?
A I BELIEVE THAT INDICATES THAT.
Q 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.
Q 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?
A IT REPRESENTS A GENERAL LOCATION OF THE BANDS OF A
TYPE BA.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND THE B BLOCK DIAGRAM?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q NOW, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IN
TERMS OF THE DEGRADATION ROUTE?
A THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEGRADATION ROUTE
DESCRIBED IN THE WRAXALL ARTICLE.
Q AND THAT IS WHAT?
A THAT YOU LOSE THE BANDS FROM THE ANODAL SIDE OR THE
POSITIVE SIDE TOWARDS THE CATHODAL SIDE OR THE NEGATIVE SIDE, THE
LOW SIDE.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q AND NOW WHAT DOES THIS SHOW?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A NO, IT DID NOT.
Q WHAT WAS THAT?
A 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.
Q SO YESHION WAS NOT ACTUALLY STUDYING -- DID NOT
PURPORT TO BE STUDYING THE BA TO B PHENOMENON TO SAY --
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SHE WAS STUDYING OTHER EAP ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO
DEGRADATION?
A I DON'T KNOW ABOUT STUDYING. SHE WAS REFERENCING
OTHER ISSUES, YES.
Q 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?
A YES, I DID.
Q SO HOW?
A 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.
Q 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?
A IT IS THE FORENSIC SCIENCE HANDBOOK BY RICHARD
SAFERSTEIN.
Q 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?
A IT ENFORCED MY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHICH PORTION YOU LOOKED AT?
A IT WAS A SECTION THAT WAS WRITTEN BY DR. SENSABAUGH.
Q MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US A PAGE NUMBER BECAUSE I BELIEVE
COUNSEL MAY HAVE A COPY OF THAT?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q DID HE SAY THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY DEGRADATION ROUTE?
A I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HE SAID?
A 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."
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, CAN YOU READ THE REST OF THE
PARAGRAPH?
A I WILL BE HAPPY TO.
Q SURE.
A "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."
Q NOW, DID MR. SENSABAUGH IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR
DEGRADATION ROUTE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WRAXALL AND EMES
DEGRADATION ROUTE?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW SO? WHAT OTHER DEGRADATION
ROUTE IS IDENTIFIED THERE?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE
WRAXALL AND EMES?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SO ACCORDING TO THE WRAXALL AND
EMES STUDY, THEY ARE SAYING THAT WHICH BAND WOULD REMAIN AFTER
THE SAMPLE HAD DEGRADED?
A THE MOST CATHODAL ONE OR THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE
ORIGIN.
Q AND THE ONE THAT IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS
DIAGRAM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IN THIS PORTION THAT YOU JUST READ TO US THAT
SENSABAUGH IS SAYING WHICH?
A 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.
Q AND DOES HE SAY THAT THESE DEGRADATION ROUTES, THAT
IT ALWAYS OCCURS IN EITHER OF THESE TWO WAYS?
A I DIDN'T READ THAT IN THERE, NO.
Q DOES HE SAY THAT -- THAT THESE ARE GENERAL WAYS THAT
THEY HAPPEN, THAT THIS IS HOW IT GENERALLY HAPPENS?
A THERE IS THE TERM "GENERALLY USED," YES.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW DID YOU TAKE THAT TERM, THAT
THIS GENERALLY, GENERALLY TAKE THESE TWO PATHS?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A 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.
Q 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?
A NO, IT DID NOT.
Q 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?
A I'M NOT SURE ABOUT --
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID ANYTHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING
CROSS-EXAMINATION CAUSE YOU TO CHANGE THAT OPINION OR REEVALUATE
THAT OPINION?
A NO, IT DID NOT.
Q NOW, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO RESOLVING THIS ISSUE, IS IT
POSSIBLE TO LOOK AT A CONTROL STUDY FROM THE SCENE?
A I DON'T KNOW IF IT TOTALLY RESOLVES IT, BUT IT DOES
LEND CREDENCE TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE DEGRADATION
OCCURRING.
Q AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, USING THE CONTROL STUDY?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
SPECIFICALLY, SIR, DID YOU LOOK AT AN ARTICLE BY
BRUCE BUDOWLE AND ROBERT ALLEN ENTITLED "ELECTROPHORESIS
RELIABILITY, THE CONTAMINANT ISSUE"?
A YES, I DID.
Q 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.)
Q BY 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?
A IT IS DEALING WITH ELECTROPHORESIS RELIABILITY IN
GENERAL, NOT JUST WITH THE EAP.
Q 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?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q PORTION THAT I HAVE BRACKETED OFF?
A 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."
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAYBE WE CAN SEE THE SEROLOGY RESULTS BOARD.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, MR. MATHESON, WHEN YOU
CONSIDERED THOSE TEST RESULTS ON 42, WERE THOSE TEST RESULTS
INCONCLUSIVE?
A YES, THEY WERE.
Q 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.)
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q 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?
A WELL, I DID NOT REPORT A TYPE AT ALL FOR THAT. MY
REPORT REFLECTS INCONCLUSIVE.
Q 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?
A NO, I WAS NOT.
Q SO WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN CONSIDERING THIS AND
TESTIFYING ABOUT THIS AND GIVING YOUR EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE EAP
RESULTS UNDER THE FINGERNAILS?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW --
THE COURT: WOULD YOU SHOW THOSE TO MR. BLASIER REAL QUICK.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SO SIR, WHEN YOU WERE SAYING THAT
YOU WERE ASSUMING THAT THAT IS THE VICTIM'S BLOOD, THAT IS BASED
ON WHAT?
A THE LOCATION FROM WHERE IT WAS COLLECTED.
Q OKAY.
AND IS THAT WHY THIS TYPE OF SAMPLE IS COLLECTED?
A YES.
Q SIR, I WOULD NOW LIKE TO SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 224-A AND
224-B.
SHOWING YOU 224-A FIRST, WHAT IS THAT?
A 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.
Q OKAY. AND 224-B IS?
A 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.
Q COULD YOU IDENTIFY FOR US, JUST BY WRITING ON THE
BOTTOM OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, WHERE 42 IS?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
SO HAVE YOU WRITTEN IN WHERE 42 IS?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q SO WITHOUT TESTING IT, WOULD HAVE YOU HAVE EXPECTED
THIS TO LOOK LIKE A BA?
A YES, I WOULD HAVE.
Q BUT WHEN YOU TESTED IT, WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE?
A 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.
Q MAYBE WE CAN JUST WITH DIRECTING THE ARROWS PRINTOUT
WHERE THOSE ARE.
A 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).
Q OKAY. JUST PUT ANOTHER ARROW POINTING TO THE UPPER B
BAND.
A 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.
Q 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?
A FOR THAT ITEM?
Q YES.
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q BUT DO YOU SEE A BAND PATTERN IN THE TWO B REGIONS?
A 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.
Q 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?
A NO, I WOULD NOT.
Q WHY NOT?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, MR. MATHESON -- BY THE WAY,
HOW MANY YEARS DO YOU HAVE OF EXPERIENCE IN TOTAL LOOKING AT
THESE BANDING PATTERNS?
A APPROXIMATELY TWELVE YEARS.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: THERE ARE ONLY TWO PATTERNS; IS
THAT CORRECT, IN THAT LANE?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I DID.
Q 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)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. MATHESON, WHILE HE WE ARE
WAITING FOR THE PRINTOUT, CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT L-387 IS?
A 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.
Q AND ON THIS PARTICULAR WORK SHEET YOU CALLED ITEM NO.
84, THE FINGERNAILS, AS A B WHAT?
A THIS WORK SHEET DOES NOT HAVE 84 ON IT.
Q THAT DOESN'T HAVE 84.
DOES THAT HAVE 42 ON IT?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND WHAT WAS 42 CALLED AS?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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 --
Q DO YOU SEE THESE VERY, VERY BRIGHT HASH MARKS THAT GO
ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOTTOM PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?
A OH, I'M SORRY, YES, I DO.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
WHERE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT HASH MARK IS THE LANE
THAT CONSTITUTES 42?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q USING THE SAME PEN, CAN YOU WRITE ARROWS FOR 84-A
AND 84-B?
A 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.
Q SIR, ON THAT ARE THERE ANY OTHER RESULTS THAT YOU GOT
THAT APPEAR TO CONTAIN A B LIKE PATTERN?
A THERE ARE ACTUALLY A COUPLE OTHERS THAT I CALLED B
INCONCLUSIVE, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE -- NO, THAT IS IT.
Q IS THERE A 117 ON THERE?
A ONE OF THE LANES IS THE RESULTS OF ITEM 117, YES.
Q CAN YOU JUST POINT THAT OUT FOR US WITH THE ARROW, IN
OTHER WORDS, AND WRITE "117."
A OKAY.
I'M WRITING AGAIN AN ARROW POINTING UP INTO THE LANE
THAT EXPRESSES THE RESULTS OR THE DATA OBTAINED FROM ITEM NO.
117.
Q AND WAS 117 IDENTIFIED AS BEING ONE OF THE REAR GATE
STAINS FROM THE BUNDY LOCATION?
A YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS.
Q AND YOU GOT A B LIKE PATTERN ON THAT?
A I CALLED IT A B QUESTION MARK INCONCLUSIVE, YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, MR. MATHESON, WHY DO THE LANES
THAT CONTAIN 84-A AND B LOOK SO MESSY TO A LAY PERSON?
A 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.
Q 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?
A WELL, THERE IS GENERAL HAZINESS IN A LOT OF THE
AREAS.
Q 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?
A WELL, IN GENERAL THERE IS A HAZINESS THAT SHOWS UP --
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 84-A AND B RIGHT NOW?
Q YEAH.
A THAT DOES SHOW UP OR APPEAR TO EXIST BETWEEN THE TWO
B BANDS. IT IS A GENERAL FLORESCENCE OR LUMINESCENCE OCCURRING
THERE.
Q OF WHICH ONE, 84-A OR 84-B?
A WELL, AS I SEE IT HERE, BOTH OF THEM. THERE JUST
APPEARS TO BE A GENERAL LIGHTENING OF THAT AREA.
Q CAN YOU DIRECT THE ARROW DOWN TO THE LOCATION THAT
YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
A 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.
Q AND YOU MEAN ON 84-B1 AS WELL?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q CAN YOU DIRECT THE ARROW TO THE AREA ON THE 84-B SIDE
-- CAN YOU GET THE ARROW --
A THERE WE GO.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, THAT THIS HAS SOME
FOUNDATION OR ANY SCIENTIFIC MEANING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: BUT IN YOUR VIEW DOES THAT HAVE ANY
FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE?
A WELL, IT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT I WOULD CALL EVEN CLOSE
TO A BAND, SO NO.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND HOW SO?
A AFTER HAVING SEEN MANY OF THESE SAMPLES, YOU GET THE
EXPERIENCE ON HOW TO READ THEM.
Q 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?
A I DON'T SEE WHAT I FEEL ARE BANDS IN THAT AREA.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 117 --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW MANY BANDS ON 84-A DO YOU SEE?
A WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 84-A NOW, RIGHT?
Q 84-A?
A 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.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. MATHESON --
A 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.
Q AND CAN YOU NOW MARK FOR US USING ALSO GREEN ARROWS,
BUT FACING THE OTHER WAY, THE BANDS THAT YOU SEE ON 84-B?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND THE RED ARROW SIGNIFIES SOME HAZE THAT YOU
CONSIDER TO BE INSIGNIFICANT?
A THAT I DON'T CONSIDER TO BE A BAND, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WITH RESPECT TO THE 84-B LANE, THE GREEN ARROWS
SIGNIFY THE B BANDS IN THAT LANE?
A YES.
Q AND THE BLUE ARROW SIGNIFIES WHAT?
A THE HAZY AREA IN BETWEEN IT.
Q THAT YOU DO NOT ATTRIBUTE FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE TO?
A THAT I'M NOT SEEING A BAND, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: TURNING YOUR ATTENTION TO 117, DOES
THAT ALSO HAVE A B LIKE PATTERN, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, I CALLED IT A B INCONCLUSIVE.
Q RIGHT.
A BOTH BANDS ARE PRESENT.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DIRECT ON
117.
IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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?
A I BELIEVE I HAVE, YES.
Q AND HAVE YOU SEEN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT OCCURRING IN
YOUR OPINION AT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE?
A YES, I BELIEVE I HAVE.
Q ONLY IN THE POOL OF BLOOD 42 OR ELSEWHERE AT THE
CRIME SCENE?
A TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OTHER INFORMATION ELSEWHERE.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHICH ONE WAS THAT?
A 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.)
Q BY 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?
A THAT IS HOW IT IS ON THE BOARD, YES.
Q AND WITH RESPECT TO THE B BAND -- EXCUSE ME -- A
BANDS ON THAT SAMPLE, WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A THAT THEY WERE WEAKER THAN I WOULD EXPECT FOR AN
EXPECTED BA RESULT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: WHAT I WAS SEEING, ASSUMING THAT WAS
DEGRADATION, DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT ROUTE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHY?
A BECAUSE THE TWO B BANDS WERE QUITE BRIGHT AND THE TWO
A BANDS WERE FAIRLY WEAK.
Q 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?
A I RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE ITEMS BE SUBMITTED FOR DNA
TESTING.
Q 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?
A THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED ON CROSS, YES.
Q BUT I MEAN IS IT TRUE THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THEY WERE RETURNED TO YOUR LABORATORY?
A NO. LIKE I TESTIFIED, THEY WERE JUST RETURNING TO
BECOME A PART OF THE REST OF THE CASE. IT IS OUR EVIDENCE.
Q WAS EVERYTHING FROM DOJ THAT WAS SENT TO THEM
EVENTUALLY RETURNED TO YOUR LABORATORY?
A MOST EVERYTHING. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE IF WE
HAVE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING BACK IN OUR LABORATORY.
Q AND WHY NOT DO ANOTHER EAP TEST?
A AT THIS POINT I DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY.
Q WELL, WHY WOULD YOU DECIDE TO SUBMIT IT FOR DNA
TESTING BUT NOT TO PERFORM ANOTHER EAP TEST?
A WELL, INITIALLY I DIDN'T WANT TO USE UP ANY MORE
SAMPLE TO RUN ADDITIONAL TEST.
Q AND WOULD AN ADDITIONAL EAP TEST PROVIDE YOU WITH
MORE INFORMATION?
A I WOULD EXPECT IT TO GIVE ME THE SAME RESULT AS IT
DID THE FIRST TIME.
Q WHAT A GENETIC REST -- WELL, WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT IT
TO GIVE YOU THE SAME RESULT AS IT DID THE FIRST TIME?
A 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.
Q SO IT DOESN'T GET UNDEGRADED BECAUSE JUST YOU RUN IT
ANOTHER TIME?
A ASSUMING, YES, DEGRADED, YES, IS WOULD JUST NOT GO
UNDEGRADED.
Q IS THERE A WAY, ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE, TO UNDEGRADE A SAMPLE TO BRING OUT A DEGRADED BAND?
A 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.
Q 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?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN
YOU ARE DOING THESE TESTS, YOU TRY TO CONSERVE SAMPLES FOR FUTURE
TESTING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A ALL TYPES OF TESTS, YES.
Q 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?
A YES. YOU INVENTORY AND NOT USE ANY MORE SAMPLE THAN
NECESSARY.
Q 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE -- IS THAT WHERE YOU WOULD DRY
BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT A CABINET IN THAT ROOM THAT
IS USED FOR DRYING PURPOSES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q IN THAT CABINET THERE ARE SOME CHEMICALS THAT ARE
STORED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A NO, THEY DO NOT.
Q AND IF THEY DID, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THE TYPE OF REAGENTS THAT YOU STORE?
A 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.
Q 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?
A NO, IT WOULD NOT.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT. IT IS KEPT UNLOCKED.
Q AND WHAT ABOUT DURING HOURS WHEN THE LABORATORY IS
CLOSED?
A IT IS LOCKED.
Q CAN PEOPLE GET THROUGH -- ANYONE GET THROUGH THAT
DOOR?
A NO. ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE ACCESS CARD.
Q AND WHO ARE THEY?
A 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.
Q 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?
A TALKING ABOUT THE DOOR FROM THE CRIME LAB LOBBY INTO
THE HALLWAY?
Q RIGHT.
A 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.
Q BUT ORDINARY DETECTIVES OR POLICE OFFICERS, DO THEY
HAVE ACCESS TO THE CORRIDOR AREA?
A NO, THEY DO NOT.
Q 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?
A NO, THEY DON'T.
Q OKAY.
WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE CORRIDORS THAT DOES NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?
A 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.
Q NOW, YOU SAID THAT -- YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT JANITORS.
DO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?
A NO, THEY DO NOT.
Q DO THEY EVER GO INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?
A OCCASIONALLY, YES.
Q UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?
A 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.
Q SO THE JANITORS ARE THEN MONITORED BY ONE OF THE
PEOPLE THAT HAS ACCESS, SUCH AS A CRIMINALIST OR ONE OF YOUR
STUDENT WORKERS?
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, MR. MATHESON --
MR. GOLDBERG: I WANTED TO PUT THIS TESTING BOARD BACK.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, MR. MATHESON, AS TO THE SID
PIPER TECH FACILITY, WHICH IS MORE SECURE BETWEEN THE LOBBY AREA
AND THE CORRIDOR AREA?
A THE CORRIDOR AREA IS THE MORE SECURE OF THE TWO.
Q AND WHICH IS MORE SECURE BETWEEN THE CORRIDOR AREA
AND THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?
A THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM.
Q NOW, THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, IN ORDER TO GET
INTO THAT SHOWING -- USING THE MAP, CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE YOU
HAVE TO GO?
A FROM THE OUTSIDE?
Q YES.
A TO GET FROM THE --
Q OR FROM THE CORRIDOR AT LEAST.
A 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).
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO JUNE THE 14TH OF LAST YEAR, YOU
SAID THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS PROCESSING SOME EVIDENCE FROM
ANOTHER CASE?
A SHE MENTIONED THAT TO ME, THAT SHE HAD.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU KNOW --
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU KNOW -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT
KIND OF EVIDENCE SHE WAS PROCESSING?
A ALL I KNOW IS THAT --
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. BASED ON HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT HAPPENED ON THE 16TH?
A CORRECT, AFTER IT WAS BOOKED IN AT OUR EVIDENCE
CONTROL UNIT.
Q 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?
A NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE.
Q 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?
A NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE.
Q 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?
A WELL, YOU JUST WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REFER TO A
COMPUTER TO FIND OUT WHERE IT'S AT.
Q 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?
A WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETS COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THIS
POINT?
Q RIGHT.
A 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.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE SETS SYSTEM, ON OFF HOURS,
CAN YOU USE THAT SYSTEM?
A ME PERSONALLY?
Q YES.
A NO, I CAN NOT.
Q WHY NOT?
A BECAUSE IT'S PASSWORD PROTECTED AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE PASSWORD IS.
Q 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?
A I CAN'T, NO.
Q CAN YOUR CRIMINALISTS?
A NO.
Q CAN A POLICE OFFICER OR DETECTIVE?
A NO.
Q 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?
A 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)
Q BY 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.)
THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS THAT?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WERE ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
ENTERED THE ROOM THAT ARE LISTED ON THIS DOCUMENT PEOPLE WHO ARE
AUTHORIZED TO DO SO?
A YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON
THE ELMO.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q AND THEN MR. FUNG WENT IN AT WHAT APPEARS TO BE 1844
OR 6:44?
A THAT'S CORRECT. ACTUALLY, THAT ONE'S EASIER TO READ
AT THE MOMENT.
Q AND THE 13TH, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DAY
THAT THE CRIME SCENES WERE PROCESSED BY ANDREA MAZZOLA AND DENNIS
FUNG?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT DOES "END OF REPORT" MEAN?
A 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.
Q NOW, SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PAGE,
614 AT 6:03 -- IS THIS 6:03 A.M., SIR?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND DOES THAT INDICATE THAT YOU BADGED INTO THE
EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT THAT TIME?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DOES THIS DOCUMENT -- WOULD
THIS DOCUMENT REFLECT ALL OF THE ACTIVITY THAT WOULD HAVE
OCCURRED BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES?
A WITH REGARD TO THAT DOOR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A NO, THERE'S NO INFORMATION -- NO ACTIVITY INDICATED.
Q 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?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q AND DOES HE ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM?
A YES, HE DOES.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID HE DO SOME OF THE TESTING IN
THIS CASE?
A YES.
Q NOW, DID YOU LOOK AT SOME DOCUMENTS AS TO WHEN MR.
YAMAUCHI BEGAN SAMPLING EVIDENCE ON THE 14TH?
A I SAW SOMETHING THAT INDICATED WHEN THEY WERE
SAMPLED, YES, A TIME FRAME.
Q WHEN? WHEN? WHEN DID IT START?
A WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DOCUMENT AGAIN.
MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.
MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
Q BY 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.
A 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.
Q WHAT TIME DID MR. YAMAUCHI START HIS SAMPLING?
A ON THESE ITEMS, ABOUT 1000 HOURS.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR
HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
ANSWER STRICKEN.
Q BY 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?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND IS THAT A DOCUMENT THAT'S MAINTAINED IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF THE CRIME LABORATORY'S BUSINESS?
A YES, IT IS.
Q 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHEN DOES HE FILL THAT OUT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
ACTIVITY THAT HE'S REPORTING?
A AT OR AROUND THE TIME THAT THE ACTIVITY OCCURS.
Q 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?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, ABOUT 10:00 A.M.
Q BY 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?
A YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY 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?
A AS FAR AS THE COLLECTION AND PREPARATION FOR TESTING,
YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DOES THIS DOCUMENT INDICATE
THAT AT 9:59, MR. YAMAUCHI BADGED INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING
ROOM?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q THIS IS A.M., 9:59 A.M.?
A YES.
Q 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?
A YES, THEY ARE.
Q NOW, REVIEWING THE PEOPLE WHO BADGED IN BETWEEN THOSE
TWO TIME FRAMES, DO YOU SEE THAT YOU BADGED IN ON A NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS?
A YES. I WAS IN AND OUT OF THAT ROOM QUITE A BIT.
Q CAN YOU COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT YOU WENT INTO
THE ROOM BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES?
A 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.
Q AND CAN YOU TELL US THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA ENTERED THE ROOM IN THOSE TIME FRAMES -- IN THAT TIME
FRAME?
A 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.
Q CAN YOU TELL US THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT DENNIS FUNG
CAME IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIME FRAMES?
A OKAY.
I COUNT FOUR TIMES ON THE FIRST PAGE AND NONE ON THE
SECOND. SO FOUR TIMES.
Q AND CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY TIMES COLLIN YAMAUCHI
WENT IN?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: WELL, WE WERE IN AND OUT OF THERE QUITE A
BIT, YES.
Q BY 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?
A MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN, THAT'S RIGHT. IT DOESN'T RECORD
EXITS, JUST ENTRIES.
Q 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?
A NO, THERE IS NOT.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q SO THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY OF BADGING IN IS SIMULTANEOUS
TO THIS NOISE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, WITHIN A SECOND OR TWO, YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, THEY ARE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND IS THAT TRUE OF ALL THE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT?
A YES.
Q NOW, IN THE YEARS THAT YOU'VE WORKED IN THE
LABORATORY -- WELL, I GUESS PIPER TECH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR HOW
MANY YEARS?
A OH, I BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT FOUR YEARS, FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: OR A CIVILIAN?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q 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?
A I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT, NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM DENNIS
FUNG OR ANDREA MAZZOLA?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: YOU MEAN THINGS WHERE AN ENTRY --
WRONG DATE HAD BEEN MADE AND THAT KIND OF STUFF?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT'S A 314?
A IT'S -- IT'S A FORM NUMBER FOR AN OFFICIAL CORRECTION
TO A DEPARTMENT FORM.
Q 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?
A NO, THEY DO NOT.
Q HAVE ALL THE DETECTIVES IN HOMICIDE BEEN PROVIDED
WITH SUCH KITS?
A NO, THEY HAVE NOT.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAVE ALL THE DETECTIVES IN
HOMICIDE BEEN PROVIDED WITH SUCH TRAINING?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE, NO.
Q AND YOU SAID THAT SID RESPONDS TO ONLY FROM 10 TO 15
PERCENT OF THE HOMICIDES IN THE CITY?
A I THINK I ESTIMATED 10 TO 20 PERCENT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING UNUSUAL
ABOUT A DETECTIVE THAT DECIDED NOT TO CALL SID AND SIMPLY COLLECT
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE HIMSELF?
A NOT UNUSUAL, NO.
Q NOW, GETTING TO THE ISSUE OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING A
LITTLE BIT, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT A ALTERNATIVE LIGHT SOURCE.
WHAT'S THAT FOR?
A WELL, THE MAIN USE OF IT IS SIMILAR TO THE LASER. WE
PARTICULARLY USE IT FOR LOOKING FOR BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS SUCH AS
SEMEN.
Q WHY DO YOU USE IT TO LOOK FOR BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS SUCH
AS SEMEN?
A 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.
Q DO YOU USE THAT FOR BLOOD IN THE FIELD TYPICALLY?
A NO.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A I HAVE NOT HEARD OF A SITUATION RELATED TO THIS WHERE
IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Q AND WHAT ABOUT ROCKINGHAM?
A SAME.
Q WHEN CAN AN ALTERNATIVE LIGHT SOURCE BE USED?
A AS FAR AS -- IT'S AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALISTS TO TAKE
OUT AND USE WHENEVER THEY FEEL IT NECESSARY.
Q CAN YOU USE IT IN THE DAYLIGHT?
A WELL, NO. IT'S -- IT'S A LIGHT SOURCE. FOR IT TO
WORK, IT NEEDS TO BE DARK.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE -- DO YOU
HAVE EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF RECOGNIZING BLOOD PATTERNS IN A FIELD
SITUATION?
A I HAVE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN RECOGNIZING
PATTERNS. I'M NOT TRAINED TO INTERPRET THEM.
Q ARE YOU ALSO TRAINED ON HOW TO PHOTO DOCUMENT
BLOODSTAIN OR BLOODSTAIN PATTERNS SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN
INTERPRET THEM?
A YES, I AM.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q WHAT ABOUT JUST A SYMMETRICAL STAIN?
A WELL, IF THERE IS NEVER GOING TO BE ANY
INTERPRETATION ON IT, THEN IT CAN JUST BE PHOTOGRAPHED.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A NO. IT'S ALREADY BEING DOCUMENTED THROUGH THE
PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND AT THE
BUNDY LOCATION, YOU DID SOME TESTING ON THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND THAT WAS CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY TESTING?
A YES.
Q 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?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND FROM A SEROLOGY, FORENSIC SEROLOGY STANDPOINT,
DOES THAT PRESENT ANY PROBLEM?
A IT DID NOT AFFECT THE RESULTS I DON'T BELIEVE, NO.
Q 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?
A USUALLY NOT, NO.
Q WHEN DO YOU USUALLY INITIAL THE COIN ENVELOPES?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION I GOT FROM HER TESTIMONY.
Q AND IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH USING NON-SERRATED,
SMOOTH TWEEZERS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO "PROBLEM."
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, THERE'S NOT. THAT'S THE PROPER TOOL TO
USE.
Q BY 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?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A
HYPOTHETICAL, SERIES OF HYPOTHETICAL INVOLVING A BLANKET.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A IN GENERAL, YES.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE
RELATING TO A BLANKET HAVING BEEN PLACED OVER NICOLE SIMPSON?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND IS THERE ANY REASON NON-FORENSIC OR OTHERWISE FOR
HAVING DONE THAT?
A I'VE BEEN ADVISED THAT THERE IS, YES.
Q WHAT?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN YOU WERE GIVING YOUR TESTIMONY
AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF DOING THAT, DID YOU LIMIT YOUR ANSWER TO
FORENSIC, FORENSIC REASONS?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WOULD A NON -- JUST TELL US GENERICALLY, WHAT
WOULD A NON-FORENSIC REASON BE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN YOU SAY FORENSIC REASONS, WHAT
DOES THAT INCLUDE?
A WELL, I'M STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT THE -- THE EVIDENCE
ITSELF AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING OTHER -- ANY OTHER REASON SUCH AS
INVESTIGATIVE.
Q WHAT DOES THE TERM "FORENSIC" MEAN?
A "FORENSIC" HAS TO DO WITH ASSOCIATING -- LIKE
FORENSIC SCIENCE IS SCIENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAW.
Q 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?
A PROBABLY NOT, NO.
Q 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?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE COLLECTED THE
BLANKET. WHY?
A 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THERE'S ADVANTAGES TO IT, YES.
Q WHAT?
A AND THAT IS CONTINUITY. YOU HAVE -- THE SAME PEOPLE
DEALING WITH BOTH LOCATIONS HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, IT WOULD.
Q AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU FELT THAT THE CORONERS
WERE CALLED TOO SOON. WHY?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THE CORONER WERE CALLED AFTER
YOU COMPLETED YOUR WORK, THAT WOULD BE SOMETIME BETWEEN 10:00 AND
12:00?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE THEORY
THAT THE CORONERS WEREN'T CALLED SOON ENOUGH?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q BUT IF YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN COLLECTING IT
ANYWAY, WOULD THAT PROBLEM BE AS SIGNIFICANT?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO A PERFECT
JOB, NO.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: YEAH, THERE ARE MANY TIMES ON LOOKING BACK I
WISH I WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THE THINGS THAT YOU DID WERE DONE WRONG?
A NO, NOT AT ALL.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: NO, I DID NOT.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: NO.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE IT WAS COVERED ON CROSS.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT ABOUT MR. FUNG?
A NO, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH HIS COMPETENCE ON THIS
CASE.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q AND THOSE WERE?
A THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT SIGNED AND THAT IT WAS NOT
DATED OR TIMED AS TO WHEN THEY LEFT.
Q AND COULD THAT AFFECT IN ANY WAY ANY OF THE TEST
RESULTS IN THIS CASE?
A THE FACT THAT THOSE ARE LEFT OFF, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU PERSONALLY DON'T COUNT
SWATCHES. WHY?
A WELL, I SAID I DIDN'T COUNT SWATCHES.
Q THAT'S TRUE.
AND WHY WAS IT THAT YOU DID NOT COUNT SWATCHES?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: THAT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE OR NECESSARY
BEFORE.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHY NOT?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO YOUR
TESTIMONY TO SPEAKING TO DR. DE FOREST ABOUT CRIME SCENE
DOCUMENTATION IN THIS CASE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF A PENCIL FOR MAKING
SKETCHES OF THE CRIME SCENE, DOES DR. DE FOREST DEPOSE THAT?
A HE INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT.
Q 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?
A MY READING THAT DOCUMENT, FIELD PROCEDURES, IS NOT
PART OF IT.
Q 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?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q WHAT IS THAT?
A 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.
Q AND, SIR, WHAT ARE THESE WITNESS CRITIQUE FORMS THAT
YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT FOR?
A 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.
Q WHY WEREN'T THEY USED IN THIS CASE?
A 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.
Q AND YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD WATCHED SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN ADVISED IN FACT THAT AS AN EXPERT, YOU
WERE ALLOWED TO DO THAT?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, I DO.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER
THAT WAS PRIOR TO WHEN SHE STARTED HER TESTIMONY, DURING OR
AFTER?
A WELL, I KNOW IT WASN'T AFTER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS
DURING OR PRIOR.
Q DID YOU WRITE IT DOWN ANYWHERE?
A NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.
Q DID YOU OR ANYONE IN YOUR PRESENCE EVER TRY TO PUT
ANY PRESSURE ON HER OR SUGGEST TO HER THE SUBSTANCE OF HER
TESTIMONY?
A NO. NOT AT ALL.
Q NOW, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A
TEAM OF DEFENSE EXPERTS VISITING THE LAB.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A I BELIEVE THERE ARE REFERENCES TO THAT A COUPLE
TIMES, YES.
Q HOW MANY TIMES DID A TEAM OF DEFENSE EXPERTS VISIT
THE LAB IN THIS CASE?
A I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE OR SIX.
Q SO ALMOST HALF A DOZEN TIMES?
A YES.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, WAS THERE ONE DEFENSE VISIT
THAT INVOLVED A DR. BADEN AND DR. WOLF TAKING A LOOK AT EVIDENCE?
A YES, THERE WAS.
Q AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THAT INCIDENT PHOTO
DOCUMENTED IN ANY WAY?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q 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?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THE DEFENSE INVITED TO
THAT SEARCH?
A I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BY 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?
A I'M AWARE OF THAT, YES.
Q NOW, WAS THERE ALSO ANOTHER INCIDENT WHERE DR. LEE
LOOKED AT ITEMS INCLUDING SWATCHES FROM THE BUNDY TRAIL IN YOUR
PRESENCE?
A YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT DR. LEE IS CONSIDERED TO
BE A WIDELY KNOWN FORENSIC EXPERT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A THEY WERE RELEASED TO THEM. THEY WERE RELEASED IN MY
PRESENCE. I DIDN'T DO THE ACTUAL RELEASE.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.)
Q BY 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?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q BUT THERE WAS WHEN IT RETURNED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A IT IS AN ITEM THAT SHOULD NOT BE WITH THAT BINDLE,
THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE,
SIR, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS CONTAMINATION IN FACT CONTRIBUTED
BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTROL?
A YES.
Q WHAT?
A THE SWATCH AT THIS POINT COULD BE TESTED.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN DONE?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS SENT OUT, YES.
Q 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?
A I HAD BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WERE, YES.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. MOVE TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE ANSWER.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD THEY BEEN
TAKEN?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: I CAN'T COME UP WITH AN EXACT ANSWER FOR
THAT.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: I'M NOT ASKING FOR A NUMBER, BUT IS
THIS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS, THAT DOES HAPPEN ON OCCASION?
A LIKE I TESTIFIED, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE BLOOD ON VERY
DARK ARTICLES LIKE THAT.
Q WHY WAS IT, SIR, THAT THERE WAS NO RUSH TO DO TESTING
ON THOSE SOCKS?
A 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.
Q 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT JUST TO GET A SENSE OF YOUR LEVEL OF EXPERTISE,
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO PERFORM THE TEST?
A 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.
Q AND IN WHAT CONTEXT HAVE YOU DONE IT?
A IN A CLASSROOM OR LEARNING CONTEXT. I HAVE NEVER
DONE IT ON CASEWORK OR IN OUR LABORATORY.
Q 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?
A THAT'S FAIR.
Q AND WHAT ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE THEORETICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY WORKS?
A I HAVE JUST A VERY BASIC BROAD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
TECHNOLOGY.
Q AND DO YOU ALSO HAVE A THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF
GENETICS AND DNA FROM YOUR BACKGROUND AS A SEROLOGIST AND THE
LIKE?
A GENERAL BACKGROUND, YES.
Q NOW, IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO READ PCR RESULTS, DO
YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHAT ABOUT RFLP RESULTS?
A 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.
Q AND HAVE YOU READ ARTICLES DEALING WITH THIS
TECHNOLOGY IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE?
A SOME, YES.
Q 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?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND CAN YOU THINK OF ANY STUDIES IN PARTICULAR?
A 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?
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q AND YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT, YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER IT A
PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE CONTROLS. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER
ON THAT.
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q 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?
A TO MY UNDERSTANDING, IT DEALT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE
KITS THEMSELVES.
Q AND THIS INCIDENT IS ONE THAT YOU DO OR DO NOT HAVE
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF?
A JUST THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RELAYED TO ME BY THE
CRIMINALIST THAT WAS DOING THE WORK.
Q NOW, HOW MANY DIVISIONS WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC
INVESTIGATION DIVISION DEAL WITH BLOOD SPECIMENS? ARE THERE ANY
OTHER THAN TOXICOLOGY AND SEROLOGY?
A YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UNITS WITHIN THE DIVISION?
Q RIGHT.
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES. DEFINITELY.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q BY 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?
A YES.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: NOT GIVEN HOW THE SAMPLES ARE PROCESSED AND
DRIED.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT WIPING
DOWN COUNTERS BETWEEN SAMPLES. WHY IS THAT NOT NECESSARY IN YOUR
JUDGMENT?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q WHAT?
A 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.
Q ARE THERE ALSO SOME ADVANTAGES THAT YOUR PROCEDURE
ARGUABLY HAS?
A YES.
Q WHAT?
A 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.
Q IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY WITH RESPECT TO
EVIDENCE COLLECTION, BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLECTION, THAT THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT?
A YES. THAT'S TRUE.
Q AND THAT THERE ARE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES TO A
VARIETY OF THESE DIFFERENT WAYS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: YES, I BELIEVE IT WOULD.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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?
A IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT THE PROCESS IS
SUFFICIENT, THAT IT DOES THE JOB IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES. THAT'S TRUE.
Q THAT WAS REPRESENTED TO CONTAIN HOW MUCH LIQUID?
A I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS EIGHT MILLILITERS IN IT.
Q WHEN YOU MEASURED IT, HOW MUCH DID YOU MEASURE?
A 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.
Q AND DID YOU TRY TO POUR OUT THE ENTIRE TUBE?
A WELL, NOT WITH A REAL GREAT VENGEANCE, BUT I DID TAP
IT ON THE TOP AND TRIED TO GET AS MUCH OUT AS POSSIBLE.
Q AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN 7.5 AND 8 MILLILITERS WHEN YOU MEASURED IT?
A 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.
Q DID THAT SURPRISE YOU?
A ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN I WOULD HAVE
THOUGHT. BUT THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME THAT IS GOING TO BE
RETAINED.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, IS BLOOD THICKER THAN WATER?
A YES, IT IS.
Q IS IT MORE VISCOUS?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND --
THE COURT: YOU WANT TO TELL THE JURORS WHAT VISCOUS MEANS?
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: IS IT MORE --
THE COURT: ASK THE WITNESS.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?
THE COURT: ASK THE WITNESS WHAT --
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT DOES VISCOUS MEAN, MR.
MATHESON?
A WELL, IT IS THICKER AND IT IS NOT AS RUNNY OR AS THIN
AS WATER. IT HAS SOME BODY TO IT.
Q 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.
Q BY 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?
A YES, I WOULD.
Q 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?
A WELL, IT WASN'T A MILLILITER. IT WAS HALF A
MILLILITER.
Q I'M SORRY. HALF A MILLILITER. RIGHT.
A 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.
Q 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?
A NO, NOT AT ALL. THEY ALWAYS COME WITH TOO MUCH BLOOD
ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEM.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q AND, SIR, WHEN YOU DO THAT, DO YOU EVER GET BLOOD ON
YOUR GLOVES?
A YES, I DO SOMETIMES.
Q WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE GLOVES?
A I TAKE THEM OFF AND PUT THEM IN OUR BIOHAZARD
DISPOSAL.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q OKAY.
AND AFTER YOU ARE ENTIRELY FINISHED WORKING WITH THE
VIAL BUT BEFORE YOU START YOUR TESTING, DO YOU CHANGE THEM, THROW
THEM AWAY?
A YES, I DO.
Q 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?
A WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I'D HAVE TO ESTIMATE.
Q CAN YOU GIVE US AN ESTIMATION?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS
ON A ROUTINE BASIS WHEN YOU'RE WORKING IN SEROLOGY?
A 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.
Q 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"?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q WHY NOT?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES.
Q AND THIS COULD HAPPEN EVERY TIME THAT YOU PROCESS A
GIVEN BLOOD VIAL?
A 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND HE'S A DEFENSE EXPERT; IS THAT TRUE?
A HE IS HIRED BY THE DEFENSE, YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAY ONE MILLILITER, ARE YOU CONFIDENT
IN THE PRECISION OF THAT NUMBER AS BEING WHAT YOU ACTUALLY
RELEASED?
A YES, I AM.
Q WHY?
A BECAUSE FOR THAT INCIDENT, I USED A CALIBRATED
PIPETTE THAT DRAWS OUT ONE MILLILITER AND THEN DELIVERS ONE
MILLILITER.
Q AND THOSE ARE IN FACT ACCURATE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?
A YES, THEY ARE.
Q 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?
A FOR THE ONE MILLILITER? NO.
Q 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, WHAT KIND OF A PIPETTER DO --
DID YOU USE FOR THIS PROCEDURE?
A WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE BRAND NAME. WE HAVE A COUPLE
OF DIFFERENT ONES THAT ARE MADE AND CALIBRATED TO DELIVER ONE
MILLILITER.
Q BUT DO YOU USE -- YOUR LABORATORY USES DISPOSABLE
PIPETTES AND THEN ALSO SOMETHING CALLED THE PIPETTE-MAN?
A THAT'S ONE OF THE BRANDS OF PIPETTER WE USE.
Q AND WAS THIS ONE OF THE MECHANICAL TYPE PIPETTES OR
WAS IT ONE OF THE DISPOSABLE PIPETTES?
A IT WAS A MECHANICAL PIPETTE.
Q AND DOES THAT HAVE A DISPOSABLE TIP THAT GOES ON THE
END OF IT?
A 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.
Q AND DO YOU ROUTINELY USE THESE MECHANICAL PIPETTERS
IN YOUR WORK AT THE SEROLOGY LAB?
A WHEN I WAS WORKING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB, YES.
Q 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?
A 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.
Q AND DOES THE TIP GET TOTALLY -- HOW FAR DOES THE TIP
GO IN TERMS OF BEING IMMERSED INTO THE BLOOD?
A 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.
Q AND WHEN YOU'RE DRAWING THE BLOOD INTO THE TIP, DOES
THE ENTIRE TIP BECOME FULL OF BLOOD?
A NO, NOT THE ENTIRE ONE.
Q WHAT PERCENTAGE OF -- WELL, CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA
OF HOW MUCH?
A 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.
Q ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE ONE MILLILITER?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DELIVER THE BLOOD TO THE
VIAL FOR THE EXPERT? HOW DOES THE DELIVERY SYSTEM WORK?
A 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.
Q 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?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHY?
A BECAUSE YOU'RE APPLYING A DIRECT PRESSURE. I MEAN IT
IS INSTRUMENT THAT IS MEANT TO DRAW PRECISE AMOUNTS AND DELIVER
THEM.
Q SO THE AMOUNT THAT IS ADHERING TO THE WALLS, IS IT
RELATIVELY THICK AND VISCOUS OR IS IT RELATIVELY THIN?
A NO. THERE'S VERY LITTLE ADHERING TO THE WALLS OF THE
TIP.
Q 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.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULD BE A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, PROBABLY
LESS THAN .1 MILLILITERS.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF
THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT OF WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND ON THE
CHEM-WIPE.
Q BY 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY IS PROBABLY
THROWN OUT AND -- WHEN YOU THROW OUT THE TIP?
A WELL, JUST IN -- AS I SAY, JUST IN THE TIP, IT WOULD
BE LESS THAN .1 MILLILITER.
Q .1 MILLILITER.
OKAY.
A JUST IN THE TIP. IT WOULD BE PROBABLY LESS THAN .1
MILLILITER.
Q WHERE ELSE WOULD YOU LOSE BLOOD DURING THIS
TRANSACTION?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. IT --
THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
WOULD YOU?
THE WITNESS: 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.
Q BY 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.
Q BY 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?
A OF COURSE THERE IS.
Q AND WHAT IS THE MARGIN -- WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE
MARGIN OF ERROR?
A 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.
Q 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.
Q BY 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.
THE WITNESS: THE MARGIN OF ERROR? YOU MEAN AS FAR AS WHAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSUMED DURING THIS OR --
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: RIGHT.
A 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.
Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME.
THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER IS STRICKEN. THE JURORS
TO DISREGARD IT.
Q BY 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: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
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
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MS. BLASIER- BB
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
EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)
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 FROMS LIDES OF AN EAP DEMONSTRATION
1142 - PRINTOUT OF 25915 139
ELECTROPHORETOGRAMS OF ITEMS 42 AND 84
??
25801
