Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:262
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts
Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: TRANSCRIPT - 07/26/95 - 156k
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:18:57 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 3578
Sender:
[email protected]
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995
1:56 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE
M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS
COUNSEL, MR. COCHRAN -- I SAW MR. SHAPIRO EARLIER TODAY -- MR.
BLASIER.
THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS KAHN, MISS CLARK
AND MR. HARMON, ALSO MR. DARDEN.
THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
MR. BLASIER, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
MR. BLASIER: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
IN ORDER TO AVOID A BREAK BETWEEN MISS CLARK'S
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MY REDIRECT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS
MOTION NOW.
EVEN THOUGH WE CALLED AGENT MARTZ AS OUR WITNESS, I
THINK IT IS APPARENT THAT HE IS NOT -- THAT HE IS A HOSTILE
WITNESS TO THE DEFENSE. I THINK THAT IS NOT ONLY APPARENT BY WHO
HE WAS DOING THESE TESTS FOR, BUT HIS CHANGE IN DEMEANOR AFTER
YESTERDAY MORNING'S SESSION, AS WELL AS HIS DEMEANOR DURING MISS
CLARK'S CROSS-EXAMINATION.
SO I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT UNDER 776 TO
CROSS-EXAMINE HIM IN PLACE OF MY REDIRECT EXAMINATION WHEN SHE IS
DONE.
THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY
TO ASK LEADING QUESTIONS?
MR. BLASIER: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, ANY COMMENT?
MS. CLARK: HE WAS ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: YOU DIDN'T OBJECT.
MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. I DIDN'T.
I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS ANY BIG CHANGE. I DON'T
THINK THAT AGENT MARTZ IS GOING TO BE A HOSTILE WITNESS. HE HAS
BEEN VERY FORTHRIGHT.
IF COUNSEL IS UNHAPPY WITH HIS ANSWERS, THAT DOESN'T
MAKE HIM HOSTILE. SERIOUSLY. YOU KNOW, I MEAN SUBSTANTIVELY YOU
MAY NOT LIKE THE ANSWER, THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE WITNESS HOSTILE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. BLASIER PROPOSES TO CHANGE,
BUT I WOULD URGE THE COURT NOT TO MAKE THAT FINDING BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY THE
WITNESS' TESTIMONY THUS FAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BLASIER?
MR. BLASIER: NO. I'LL SUBMIT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOUR REQUEST IS GRANTED.
MR. BLASIER: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: YOUR REQUEST IS GRANTED.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME.
LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, ADDITIONAL MATTER.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MR. DARDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
WE SERVED THE DEFENSE YESTERDAY WITH AN SDT FOR A
CASSETTE TAPE PROVIDED THE DEFENSE BY GRETCHEN STOCKDALE.
MAY I INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE IF THEY INTEND TO COMPLY
WITH THE SDT FOR THE AUDIOTAPE TODAY?
MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT
GRANTED LEAVE FOR MR. UELMEN TO ADDRESS ALL MOTIONS TOMORROW
MORNING. I THINK HE WILL BE ADDRESSING THAT AT THAT TIME. IF
THAT IS ALL RIGHT WITH THE COURT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL.
THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE IT UP TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE
O'CLOCK.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE JUST HAVE A MOMENT FOR MR. FAIRTLOUGH TO
REDO THE PRINTOUTS? THE EXPOSURE WAS NOT GOOD ON THE FIRST SET,
AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE WITH THE JURY DURING THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF AGENT MARTZ.
THE COURT: HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE, MR. FAIRTLOUGH?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'M FINISHED.
MS. CLARK: OH, WELL.
THE COURT: IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG TO CAPTURE; IT JUST TAKES
LONG TO PRINT IT.
(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.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED
BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
AGENT ROGER MARTZ, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS
STAND, PLEASE.
ROGER MARTZ,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT FBI SPECIAL AGENT ROGER
MARTZ IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MISS CLARK.
GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENT MARTZ.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AGENT MARTZ, YOU ARE REMINDED, SIR, THAT YOU
ARE STILL UNDER OATH.
AND MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME.
MS. CLARK: GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MS. CLARK:
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
WHERE WE LEFT OFF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HIGH
PRESSURE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY TEST THAT YOU DID ON THE BLOOD
SAMPLES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT THAT PARTICULAR TEST,
THE HPLC, WAS JUST A SCREENING TEST THAT YOU WOULD NOT RELY ON
FOR ANY CONCLUSION?
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES. THAT IS A SCREENING TEST AND YOU WOULD NOT USE
THAT FOR IDENTIFICATION.
Q FOR IDENTIFICATION?
A THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
Q SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THEN BETWEEN THE KIND OF
TEST THAT WILL GIVE YOU SOME INDICATION OF WHAT MIGHT BE PRESENT
VERSUS A TEST THAT WILL GIVE YOU A DEFINITIVE ANSWER THAT
SOMETHING CAN BE IDENTIFIED?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q YOU WERE PRESENT DURING DR. RIEDERS' TESTIMONY IN
COURT THE OTHER DAY, WERE YOU NOT, SIR?
A YES, I WAS.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL, WHEN I BEGAN TO QUESTION HIM
CONCERNING THE WORK HE DID IN THE CASE THAT WE CALLED THE SCONCE
CASE, PEOPLE VERSUS SCONCE?
A YES.
Q AND IN THAT CASE HE WAS RETAINED TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE VICTIM HAD BEEN POISONED TO
DEATH BY THE USE OF THE OLEANDER PLANT OR DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
MR. BLASIER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS LINE OF
QUESTIONING WITHOUT A FOUNDATION THIS AGENT HAS PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THIS.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
IT IS A LITTLE PREMATURE, BUT I AGREE WITH ON YOU
FOUNDATIONAL GROUNDS, BUT IT IS PREMATURE AT THIS POINT.
PROCEED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE USED THREE
TESTS TO DETERMINE -- HE USED THREE TESTS IN ANALYZING THE
AUTOPSY TISSUES OF THE VICTIM; THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY,
FLUORESCENT SPECTROMETRY AND RADIOIMMUNOASSAY.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND I BELIEVE THAT HE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE WERE THE
BEST THEN AVAILABLE METHODS TO TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF
OLEANDRIN.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY, SIR?
A YES, I DO.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE TESTS?
A YES, I AM.
Q HAVE YOU PERFORMED THEM EVER?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q SIR, ARE THOSE TESTS EFFECTIVE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY
A COMPOUND?
A WELL, I WILL SAY ABSOLUTELY YES OR NO. IT WOULD
DEPEND ON THE COMPOUND AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOU WOULD HAVE
TO REVIEW ALL THE DATA.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC CHEMICAL YOU
ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY.
Q WITH RESPECT TO OLEANDRIN, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE TESTS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE TO POSITIVELY
IDENTIFY THAT SUBSTANCE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU EVER PERFORMED ANY TESTS TO
DETECT THE PRESENCE OF POISONS, SIR?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PERFORMED ANY TESTS TO DETECT THE
PRESENCE OF POISONS SUCH AS OLEANDRIN?
A WELL, EVERY CHEMICAL IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT WE
HAVE IDENTIFIED CHEMICALS THAT ARE SIMILAR, BUT NOT THAT SPECIFIC
CHEMICAL.
Q ARE THERE -- ARE THE SAME TESTS -- FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR POISON AND OF THE FAMILY SIMILAR TO THAT
OF OLEANDRIN, DO YOU USE THE SAME KIND OF TESTS FOR THAT FAMILY
OF CHEMICALS, POISONS SUCH AS OLEANDRIN?
A WELL, AT THE FBI WE PRIMARILY RELY ON MASS
SPECTROMETRY TO DO OUR IDENTIFICATIONS.
Q AND IN THAT REGARD, SIR, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY RADIOIMMUNOASSAY AND
FLUORESCENT SPECTROMETRY TESTS ARE MORE OR LESS EFFECTIVE THAN
MASS SPECTROMETRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETECTION OF POISONS?
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, IRRELEVANT UNLESS HE IS TALKING
ABOUT OLEANDER.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THEY COULD ALL BE USED FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE PRESENT, BUT FOR THE IDENTIFICATION, I
WOULD RELY ON THE MASS SPECTROMETRY TO IDENTIFY THAT CHEMICAL.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING
POISONS, SIR, WOULD THE TESTS USED BY DR. RIEDERS BE MOST
APPROPRIATELY CHARACTERIZED AS SCREENING TESTS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. "POISONS" IS AWFULLY VAGUE,
COUNSEL.
Q BY MS. CLARK: FOR THE COMPOUND KNOWN AS OLEANDRIN,
SIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THAT
COMPOUND?
A I'VE LOOKED AT THE CHEMICAL AND I KNOW -- BASICALLY I
KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I COULDN'T DRAW THE STRUCTURE OR GIVE
YOU THE FORMULA FOR IT.
Q IF YOU, SIR, WERE ASKED -- IF YOU WERE ASKED IN THE
YEAR 1988 TO ANALYZE AUTOPSIED TISSUES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT YOU COULD IDENTIFY OLEANDRIN IN THOSE TISSUES, WOULD YOU HAVE
USED THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY, RADIOIMMUNOASSAY AND FLUORESCENT
SPECTROMETRY?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. BLASIER: IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: TO DETECT IT OR IDENTIFY IT?
Q BY MS. CLARK: TO IDENTIFY IT?
A NO, I WOULD USE MASS SPECTROMETRY.
Q BECAUSE?
A IT IS A DEFINITIVE TEST.
Q AND THE OTHER THREE THAT I HAVE OUTLINED ARE NOT?
A THEY ARE NOT DEFINITIVE TESTS IN THEMSELVES, NO.
Q WAS MASS SPECTROMETRY AVAILABLE BACK IN 1988?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS OF 1988 DID THE LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPH TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETER EXIST?
A YES, IT DID.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT FIRST BECAME AVAILABLE?
A WELL, THERE HAS BEEN MANY FORMS OF LIQUID
CHROMATOGRAPHY MASS SPECTROMETRY IN THE FBI. WE HAVE USED
VARIOUS FORMS SINCE ABOUT 1986.
Q 1986?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU YOURSELF AT THE FBI USE THE MACHINE KNOWN AS
THE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPH TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETER, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, FROM NOW ON I'M GOING TO SAY
LC/MSMS?
A OKAY.
Q WAS THAT PARTICULAR -- THAT PARTICULAR MACHINE WAS
AVAILABLE AS OF 1986?
A THE SPECIFIC ONE THAT I USED PRESENTLY WAS NOT, BUT
THERE WERE OTHER FORMS OF LC/MSMS AVAILABLE IN 1986. THE
ELECTROSPRAY WAS NOT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, THE ONE THAT I AM
USING IN 1986.
Q NEVERTHELESS, THERE WERE OTHER FORMS OF THE LC/MSMS
THAT WERE AVAILABLE IN 1986, CORRECT?
A YES, THERE WERE.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER IS ALREADY IN.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WOULD THE LC/MSMS, AS IT EXISTED IN
1986 THROUGH '88, HAVE BEEN A MORE EFFECTIVE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
TO USE FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF OLEANDRIN?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: FOUNDATION.
SUSTAINED. BEFORE THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE THEN?
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHAT FORM OF LC/MSMS WAS IN EXISTENCE
BACK IN 1988?
A WERE SEVERAL TYPES. ONE WAS A DIRECT LIQUID
INJECTION. THEY HAD A MOVING BELT. THERE WERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT
TYPES. PROBABLY THERMOSPRAY WAS AVAILABLE THEN. THERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT FORMS OF LC/MS.
Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE IN MANNER WHICH THEY ARE
OPERATED AND THE SUBSTANCES THAT THEY CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY
IDENTIFY?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND WOULD THE LC/MSMS, THE FORMS THAT EXISTED THEN,
BACK IN 1988, WOULD ONE OF THEM OR ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN A MORE
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING OLEANDRIN THAN THE TESTS USED BY
DR. RIEDERS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. HE HAS NEVER
TESTED THIS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, THE LC/MSMS WOULD BE A MORE EFFECTIVE
WAY TO IDENTIFY OLEANDRIN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU TALKED, SIR -- JUST NOW YOU
MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT DETECTION VERSUS IDENTIFICATION.
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY
SOMETHING IS DETECTED?
A WELL, DETECTING IS -- IS USED IN A GENERAL TERM IN
THE LABORATORY. WE HAVE CERTAIN TESTS CALLED SPOT TESTS, AND FOR
SOMETHING LIKE COCAINE, YOU WOULD DO A SPOT TEST AND YOU GET A
COLOR AND YOU COULD SAY COCAINE WAS DETECTED, BUT WHAT YOU HAVE
TO REALIZE IS THERE IS MANY OTHER CHEMICALS THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE
SIMILAR RESULTS, SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DETECTED WITH THAT
PARTICULAR TEST, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS IDENTIFIED.
IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO USE A
POSITIVE MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION AND IN THE FBI LABORATORY WE USE
MASS SPECTROMETRY AS A POSITIVE WAY TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING BASED
ON A FULL MASS SPECTRUM.
Q SO WHEN YOU DETECT, THAT MEANS SOMETHING COULD BE
PRESENT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT WHEN YOU IDENTIFY, YOU SAY IT IS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q I NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU WERE BEING EXAMINED BY MR.
BLASIER HE ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY WHETHER OR NOT ON ONE OF THE
EVIDENCE STAINS THERE WAS IONS CONSISTENT WITH EDTA.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL ANSWERING THE QUESTION YES?
A YES.
Q CONSISTENT WITH?
A RIGHT, CORRECT.
Q WHEN YOU SAY "CONSISTENT WITH," DO YOU MEAN THAT YOU
HAVE IDENTIFIED THE COMPOUND OR DO YOU MEAN THAT IT HAS BEEN
DETECTED, THAT IS, IT COULD BE THERE BUT YOU HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED
IT?
A WHEN SOMETHING IS CONSISTENT WITH SOMETHING ELSE, IT
IS NOT A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.
WITH PRELIMINARY TESTS THAT YOU DO IN THE LABORATORY,
THERE IS A LOT OF CHEMICALS THAT COULD BE CONSISTENT, BUT IN
ORDER TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING UNIQUE
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CHEMICAL BEFORE YOU CAN POSITIVELY IDENTIFY
IT AND THAT IS WHAT A MASS SPECTRUM DOES.
SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT A MASS SPECTRUM, A FULL
MASS SPECTRUM, IS A FINGERPRINT OF A CHEMICAL AND THAT IS WHY WE
TRY TO DO A FULL MASS SPECTRUM, TO IDENTIFY A CHEMICAL.
Q NOW, IN THAT REGARD, SIR, WHEN YOU DISCUSSED THIS
ISSUE WITH MR. BLASIER IN WASHINGTON OR OVER THE TELEPHONE, DID
YOU INFORM HIM OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONSISTENT AND
IDENTIFIED?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN THE EVIDENCE STAINS AND IN
YOUR OWN BLOOD, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER COULD YOU NOT
FIND THE FULL DAUGHTER, THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND THAT WAS THE ONE YOU COULD NOT
FIND THE 132 ION?
A THE 132, THE 160 AND THE 293 IN A CERTAIN RATIO.
THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE EXAMINED ON THIS YESTERDAY.
MS. CLARK: JUST FOUNDATIONAL TO THE GRAPH, YOUR HONOR.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED YOU TESTED YOUR OWN BLOOD ON MAY
11TH?
A CORRECT.
Q AND YOU DID SO WITH AND WITHOUT EDTA?
A YES.
Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME GRAPHS, SIR.
AND YOU GENERATED GRAPHS AS A RESULT OF THOSE TESTS?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND THOSE GRAPHS WERE MADE TO DEPICT THE RESULTS THAT
YOU OBTAINED?
A CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A SERIES OF THREE GRAPHS.
MAY THEY BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 549 -- 548?
THE COURT: 548.
THE CLERK: 549.
MS. CLARK: 549.
(PEO'S 549-A B, C FOR ID = GRAPHS)
THE COURT: A, B AND C?
MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT I -- YEAH, THANK YOU.
549-A WILL BE THE CHART ENTITLED "OPERATOR BLOOD, NO
EDTA ADDED," RED TOP WITH A START TIME OF TEN O'CLOCK AND 21
SECONDS.
THE SECOND ONE 549-B, "OPERATOR BLOOD WITH EDTA."
AND THE THIRD ONE, "OPERATOR BLOOD, NO EDTA ADDED"
TIME START, 10:19:55, THAT WILL BE 549-C.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, PUTTING UP ON THE ELMO 549-A,
FIRST OF ALL.
CAN YOU SEE -- WE CAN JUST SHOW HIM THE TOP LABEL,
MR. FAIRTLOUGH, SO YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT --
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
PUSHING IT OVER TO THE LEFT, IF YOU COULD SEE THE
START TIME, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A THAT IS THE TIME THAT THE ANALYSIS BEGAN, TEN O'CLOCK
IN THE MORNING.
Q NOW, THESE PRINTOUTS ALL REFLECT A CERTAIN TIME FOR
STARTING?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE VARIATION IN
QUANTIFICATION THAT WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE SENSITIVITY OF
THE COLUMN.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q IS IT THEN IMPORTANT TO RUN ALL OF YOUR SAMPLES AT
THE SAME TIME?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND IN THAT WAY WILL YOU GET AN ACCURATE RATIO? IN
OTHER WORDS, THEY WILL ALL RUN IN THE SAME WAY SO YOU WILL SEE
THEM RELATE TO EACH OTHER IN AN APPROPRIATE MORE ACCURATE
FASHION?
A IT IS BEST TO RUN THE SAMPLES VERY CLOSE TOGETHER IN
ORDER TO GET THE BEST QUANTITATION.
Q AND THE MOST ACCURATE RATIO BETWEEN THEM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BY "RATIO" I MEAN RELATIVE PEAKS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF
ONE IS VERY HIGH AND ONE IS VERY LOW, IF YOU RUN THEM AT THE SAME
TIME, WOULD THAT RELATIVE HEIGHT AND DEPTH BE ACCURATE?
A WELL, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF "ACCURATE."
IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE, BUT THE CLOSER
YOU CAN RUN YOUR SAMPLE TOGETHER, THE BETTER OFF YOU ARE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, IS THIS THE RUN THAT YOU DID ON MAY 11TH OF 1995
ON YOUR OWN BLOOD THAT YOU PUT INTO A RED-TOPPED TUBE THAT DID
NOT CONTAIN EDTA?
A YES.
Q AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT IS SHOWN IN THIS
GRAPH?
A THIS IS THE RECONSTRUCTED ION OF 160 WHICH IS AN ION
PRODUCED FROM THE 293 PARENT OF EDTA.
Q NOW, THERE IS A PEAK SHOWN THERE, CORRECT?
A YES, THERE IS.
Q WHAT DOES THAT INDICATE?
A IT INDICATES THAT EDTA COULD BE PRESENT.
Q BASED ON THIS READING, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY EDTA AS
BEING PRESENT?
A NO, I WOULD NOT.
Q DOES THIS BEAR ANY SIMILARITY, THIS TEST RUN ON YOUR
OWN BLOOD, WITHOUT EDTA, DOES THIS BEAR ANY SIMILARITY TO THE
RESULTS OBTAINED WHEN THE EVIDENCE STAINS WERE RUN?
A THESE ARE VERY SIMILAR RESULTS I GOT AS TO THE STAIN
>FROM THE SOCK AND FROM THE GATE.
Q NOW, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU, SIR -- I'M GOING TO SHOW
YOU THE NEXT ONE -- I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU 549-C.
IF YOU CAN READ THAT, IS THAT AGAIN A TEST OF YOUR
OWN BLOOD WITH NO EDTA ADDED ON MAY 11TH?
A YES, IT IS.
Q START TIME OF 10:19 AND 55 SECONDS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, WAS THIS ALSO FROM A RED-CAPPED TUBE?
A THIS WAS A REPEAT OF THE OTHER INJECTION. I JUST
REPEATED THE SAME SOLUTION.
Q AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT THE RESULT IS AS
DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A AGAIN, IT IS INDICATION THAT EDTA COULD BE PRESENT IN
MY BLOOD.
Q AND THIS IS THE BLOOD FROM THE TUBE THAT DOES NOT
CONTAIN EDTA?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q FROM THAT RESULT WOULD YOU FORM THE OPINION THAT
THERE WAS EDTA PRESENT?
A NO, I WOULD NOT. THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT DATA TO
IDENTIFY EDTA.
Q AND THAT IS BECAUSE?
A UMM, THIS IS JUST A CHROMATOGRAM WITH ONE DAUGHTER
ION; IT IS NOT A FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM.
Q AND FOR THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM, THAT WOULD BE
THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO IDENTIFY EDTA, WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEE THE
132 DAUGHTER ION?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW THEN, DID YOU RUN YOUR BLOOD WITH EDTA ADDED?
A YES, I DID.
Q SHOWING YOU 549-B, SIR, IS THIS THE GRAPH THAT
DEPICTS THE RUN IN WHICH YOU RAN YOUR BLOOD WITH EDTA ADDED?
A YES, IT IS.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE RESULT IS SHOWN IN THIS
GRAPH?
A THE RESULT -- AGAIN, THERE IS INDICATIONS THAT EDTA
COULD BE PRESENT IN THIS PARTICULAR BLOOD SAMPLE.
Q NOW, DOES THIS HAVE A DIFFERENT APPEARANCE THAN --
EXCUSE ME -- THAN THE EVIDENCE STAINS THAT YOU HAD RUN?
A THE PEAK IS LARGER THAN THE EVIDENCE STAINS.
Q I DON'T SEE ANY, ALTHOUGH, JAGGED RANDOM PEAKS AROUND
THAT ONE LARGER PEAK?
A WELL, THE NOISE KIND OF GETS BURIED WHEN YOU HAVE A
LARGE SIGNAL.
Q SO DOES THIS GRAPH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BLOOD, YOUR
BLOOD WHEN HAVING EDTA ADDED, GIVES A STRONG SIGNAL?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ON THE 160 DAUGHTER ION?
A YES.
Q THEN THE RANDOM PEAKS THAT YOU CALL NOISE ON THE
BLOOD SAMPLE OF YOUR OWN BLOOD, WITHOUT EDTA, DOES THAT INDICATE
THAT THE SIGNAL FOR THE 160 DAUGHTER ION WAS WEAK?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IS THAT VERY SIMILAR AGAIN TO THE EVIDENCE
STAINS?
A IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE EVIDENCE STAINS.
Q NOW, ON JULY 22, SIR, DID YOU DO SOME FURTHER
TESTING?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A I RETESTED MY BLOOD THE SAME BLOOD SAMPLES, AND GOT
SIMILAR RESULTS ON THAT DAY.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE ADDITIONAL GRAPHS WITH
THE DATE JULY 22, 1995, "RMM BLOOD, NO EDTA."
I WOULD ASK THAT IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 550-A.
THE COURT: SO MARKED.
(PEO'S 550-A FOR ID = GRAPH)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, IS RMM ON THIS GRAPH YOU?
A THOSE ARE MY INITIALS, YES.
MS. CLARK: AND AGAIN, JULY 22, 1995, "RMM BLOOD WITH
EDTA," 550-B.
(PEO'S 550-B FOR ID = GRAPH)
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND SHOWING YOU 550-A,
SIR --
MR. BLASIER: MAY I SEE IT?
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU 550-A, SIR.
A YES.
Q IS THAT THE GRAPH THAT DEPICTS THE TEST YOU DID ON
YOUR OWN BLOOD WITH NO EDTA -- NO EDTA ADDED ON JULY 22, 1995?
A YES, IT IS.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS SHOWN IN THIS GRAPH.
A AGAIN THERE IS INDICATIONS THAT EDTA COULD BE
PRESENT.
Q AND AGAIN DOES THIS GRAPH ALSO BEAR A RESEMBLANCE OR
SIMILARITIES TO THE EVIDENCE STAINS?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q AND IN WHAT RESPECT?
A IT GIVES A LOW SIGNAL COMPARISON TO THE KNOWN EDTA
BLOOD STANDARDS.
Q COMPARED TO THE KNOWN EDTA?
A YES.
Q AND SHOWING YOU 550-B, IS THIS A TEST OF YOUR BLOOD,
SIR, WITH EDTA ADDED?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND BASED ON THE RESULTS IN THIS GRAPH, WOULD YOU
IDENTIFY EDTA AS BEING PRESENT?
A THERE IS INDICATIONS THAT EDTA COULD BE PRESENT BASED
ON THE 160 DAUGHTER ION.
Q NOW, DOES THIS GRAPH AGAIN DEMONSTRATE THE SAME
DIFFERENCE THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU RAN THE KNOWN REFERENCE SAMPLES
THAT YOU KNEW TO CONTAIN EDTA THAT WERE TAKEN FROM THE EDTA TUBE
IN THIS CASE?
A YES, IT IS VERY SIMILAR RESULTS.
Q IN WHAT RESPECT?
A IT IS A VERY LARGE ABUNDANCE OF THE 160 ION.
Q NOW, DID YOU ALSO ATTEMPT TO CONDUCT A TEST THAT
WOULD TELL YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD FIND EDTA AFTER A PERIOD
OF TIME?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND IN THAT RESPECT WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WELL, I TOOK SOME OLD BLOOD SAMPLES THAT WE HAD IN
THE LABORATORY AND ANALYZED THOSE.
Q AND HOW OLD WERE THEY?
A UMM, ONE OF THEM I BELIEVE WAS FROM 1991 AND THE
OTHER TWO WERE FROM 1993.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MS. CLARK: TWO MORE CHARTS, YOUR HONOR.
ENTITLED JULY 22, 1995, "EDTA BLOOD FROM 1993,"
PEOPLE'S 5 --
THE COURT: 551.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. 551-A.
THE COURT: FINE. A AND B.
MS. CLARK: AND THE SECOND ONE, B.
(PEO'S 551-A & B FOR ID = CHARTS)
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 551-A, IS THIS
THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT DEPICTS YOUR TESTING OF A STAIN FROM 1993
THAT WAS KNOWN TO CONTAIN EDTA?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND WHAT DO YOU SEE ON THIS GRAPH, SIR?
A AGAIN THERE IS A VERY LARGE ABUNDANCE OF THE 160 ION.
Q AND DID THAT LOOK -- DID THAT BEAR ANY SIMILARITY TO
THE KNOWN REFERENCE SAMPLE STAINS THAT YOU CREATED IN THIS CASE
TAKEN FROM THE VIAL OF THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN?
A VERY SIMILAR RESULTS, YES.
Q IN THAT --
A A VERY LARGE ABUNDANCE OF THE 160 ION.
Q AND 551-B, IS THIS -- DOES THIS GRAPH DEPICT THE
OTHER TESTS THAT YOU RAN ON 1993 BLOOD KNOWN TO CONTAIN EDTA?
A YES.
Q NOW, BASED ON THESE -- THIS FINDING, THE BLOOD FROM
1993 THAT WAS KNOWN TO CONTAIN EDTA, DID YOU FORM SOME OPINION
ABOUT HOW STABLE THE COMPOUND IS OR HOW LONG IT WILL LAST?
A THIS PRETTY MUCH BEARED OUT WHAT I SUSPECTED, THAT
EDTA IS A VERY STABLE CHEMICAL AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY DEGRADATION
OF THE EDTA OVER THE TWO-YEAR TIME PERIOD.
Q NOW, AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, SIR, ARE THE CHEMICALS
FOUND IN BLOOD MORE STABLE WHEN BLOOD IS DRIED OR WHEN IT IS WET?
A UMM, MOST CHEMICALS ARE MUCH MORE TABLE WHEN THEY ARE
DRY THAN WHEN THEY ARE WET.
Q SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE BLOOD THAT IS DEPOSITED
ON A REAR GATE, THAT DRIES QUICKLY ON THAT REAR GATE, WOULD THE
CHEMICAL IN THAT BLOOD BE MORE STABLE AND MORE EASILY DETECTED
AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME THAN IF THEY -- THE BLOOD WAS IN A WET
POOL OF BLOOD?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
PROPERTIES OF CHEMICALS FOUND IN BLOOD AND HOW THEY DEGRADE?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL
CAUSE THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BLOOD TO DEGRADE OR BE
PRESERVED?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND IS THAT PART OF YOUR JOB, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND PART OF YOUR TRAINING?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR OPINION AS AN EXPERT
IN THIS FIELD, SIR, WILL THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BLOOD BE
BETTER PRESERVED IF THE BLOODSTAIN IS DRIED THAN IF IT IS IN A
WET POOL?
A MOST OF THE CHEMICALS THAT I DEAL WITH, THEY ARE MUCH
MORE STABLE DRY THAN THEY ARE IN A WET CONDITION.
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND THE 1993 SAMPLES THAT YOU TESTED,
SIR, WERE THOSE WET?
A NO, THEY WERE DRY BLOODSTAINS.
Q OKAY.
AND WERE THEY -- WHAT SUBSTRATE? WHAT WERE THEY ON?
A THEY WERE ON COTTON.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE A GRAPH, YOUR HONOR, ENTITLED "EDTA
ANALYSIS JULY 22, 1995," PEOPLE'S 552.
THE COURT: 552.
(PEO'S 552 FOR ID = GRAPH)
Q BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 552, SIR, CAN YOU
TELL US WHAT YOU HAVE DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IN THIS CHART?
A THOSE WERE THE BLOOD SAMPLES, SOME OF THE ONES THAT I
RAN ON THE 22ND.
Q NOW, IT SHOWS ON THIS CHART YOU RAN A BLANK?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A GENERALLY BETWEEN RUNS YOU WILL RUN A BLANK, JUST A
SOLVENT TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO CARRY-OVER.
Q AND IN THIS CASE DOES THIS GRAPH DEPICT THAT THE
BLANK WAS FLAT, NO EDTA?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THEN YOU HAVE A 50 PARTS PER MILLIMETER -- I'M
SORRY, PER MILLION?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND THAT -- WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THAT?
A JUST TO SHOW THAT THE INSTRUMENT WAS WORKING.
Q THAT IT DID DETECT A KNOWN STANDARD OF 50 PARTS PER
MILLION?
A NOT NECESSARILY 50 PARTS PER MILLION; TO SHOW THAT IT
WILL DETECT EDTA IN THAT IT IS FAIRLY SENSITIVE.
Q THEN YOU HAVE THE 1993 1 AND 1993 2. WHAT DO THOSE
SHOW?
A THOSE WERE THE TWO BLOODSTAINS THAT WERE PRESERVED IN
THE FBI LABORATORY SINCE 1993. THEY WERE EXTRACTED, THEY WERE
KNOWN EDTA BLOOD STANDARDS AND THEY SHOWED VERY HIGH LEVELS OF
EDTA.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU HAVE COME TO THE SECTION THAT SAYS "RMM,
NO," AND WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR?
A THAT DEPICTS MY BLOOD WHICH IS NOT PRESERVED WITH
EDTA.
Q NOW, IS THERE SOME READING INDICATED ON THIS THAT IT
IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THE BLANK?
A YES, THERE WAS SOME READING AND THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE
CHROMATOGRAMS WE HAD SEEN EARLIER.
Q AND WAS THAT WHERE YOU SAID YOU RAN IT FOR THE
DAUGHTER 160?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, MR. FAIRTLOUGH.
Q COULD YOU SHOW US NOW THEN THE BLANK AND THEN THE
LAST COLUMN SHOWING YOUR BLOOD -- THANK YOU -- SHOWING YOUR BLOOD
WITH EDTA ADDED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
ON THIS GRAPH, SIR, ON THIS CHART, CAN YOU TELL US
WHETHER THE RESULTS SHOWN FOR YOUR BLOOD WHERE IT SAYS "RMM, NO,"
WHERE YOU HAVE NOT ADDED EDTA AND "RMM, YES," WHERE YOU HAVE
ADDED EDTA TO YOUR BLOOD, BEARS ANY RELATIONSHIP OR SIMILARITY TO
THE COMPARISON OF THE BLOOD TAKEN FROM THE REFERENCE FILES OF THE
DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN AND THE EVIDENCE STAINS IN THIS CASE
>FROM THE GATE AND THE SOCK?
A YES. THERE WAS A VERY CLEAR COMPARISON.
MY BLOOD THAT WAS PRESERVED AND MR. SIMPSON AND MRS.
SIMPSON'S BLOODS THAT WERE PRESERVED ALL CONTAINED A LARGE AMOUNT
OF EDTA AND MY BLOOD THAT WAS NOT PRESERVED AND THE STAIN FROM
THE GATE AND THE SOCK ALL SHOWED INDICATIONS OF THE 160 ION, BUT
IN NONE OF THOSE CASES WAS I ABLE TO IDENTIFY EDTA.
Q BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, SIR, IN YOUR JOB, IS IT UNUSUAL FOR YOU TO
DISCOVER NEW COMPOUNDS, NEW CHEMICALS?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY DIFFERENT, NOT NECESSARILY NEW.
THEY ARE CHEMICALS THAT HAVE EXISTED AND IT IS THE FIRST TIME
THAT WE IDENTIFIED THEM.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
NOW, DOES THAT -- DOES THE FACT THAT YOU IDENTIFY --
WOULD YOU SAY IT IS A ROUTINE THING TO IDENTIFY CHEMICALS THAT
YOU HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IN THAT LIGHT, SIR, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOU
ROUTINELY DO IDENTIFY NEW CHEMICALS NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED,
DOES THAT HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF REFRAINING FROM IDENTIFYING
A COMPOUND UNTIL YOU SEE ALL OF THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MUST BE
PRESENT, SUCH AS IN THIS CASE THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM OF 160
AND 132 BEFORE YOU ARE READY TO IDENTIFY IT AS EDTA?
A YEAH, IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. YOU DON'T WANT TO
JUMP TO ANY CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CHEMICALS IN
THE WORLD. THERE ARE AT LEAST ELEVEN MILLION THAT ARE KNOWN AND
I'M SURE THERE IS MORE AND A LOT OF THOSE HAVE SIMILAR
PROPERTIES, AND YOU MUST BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU
POSITIVELY IDENTIFY ONE OF THOSE CHEMICALS.
Q IN DOING SO, IN SETTLING FOR TWO OUT OF THE THREE
FACTORS IN THIS CASE, IF YOU SETTLE FOR THE PARENT 239 AND THE
DAUGHTER 160 WITHOUT LOOKING FOR THE OTHER DAUGHTER OF 132,
IDENTIFYING EDTA WHEN YOU SEE ONLY TWO OUT OF THE THREE COULD
CAUSE A MISTAKE TO BE MADE?
A IN MY OPINION THAT COULD CAUSE A MISTAKE, YES.
Q NOW, SIR, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED THE QUESTION BY US AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT -- WHEN YOU WERE ASKED BY THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO LOOK AT THE BLOODSTAINS IN THIS CASE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT EDTA WAS PRESENT, DID ANYONE FROM OUR
OFFICE TELL YOU WHAT TEST TO CONDUCT?
A NO, THEY DID NOT.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK OUR PERMISSION BEFORE CONDUCTING ANY
PARTICULAR TEST?
A I THINK I HAD CALLED ROCK UP WHEN I DID THE SECOND
TEST TO MAKE SURE THAT I COULD USE MORE SAMPLE, BUT THAT WAS THE
ONLY TIME.
WHEN I INITIALLY CONDUCTED THE TESTS I DIDN'T ASK
PERMISSION FROM ANYBODY, NO.
Q THE REASON THAT YOU CONTACTED MR. HARMON WAS TO FIND
OUT IF COULD YOU GET MORE OF THE SAMPLE SO YOU COULD RUN MORE
TESTS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU WERE NOT ASKING HIS PERMISSION AS A SCIENTIST TO
ALLOW YOU TO PERFORM TESTS THAT YOU FELT WERE SCIENTIFIC?
A NO, I WAS NOT.
Q IF IN YOUR JUDGMENT, SIR, THERE WERE TESTS THAT YOU
FELT WERE APPROPRIATE TO BE CONDUCTED, WERE SCIENTIFICALLY
APPROPRIATE TO BE CONDUCTED, WOULD YOU AWAIT OUR PERMISSION
BEFORE CONDUCTING THAT TEST?
A NO, I WOULD NOT.
Q IF WE ASKED YOU NOT TO PERFORM A TEST THAT YOU FELT
WAS SCIENTIFICALLY PROPER AND CORRECT TO DO, WOULD YOU ACCEPT
THAT AND NOT DO IT AT OUR SAY SO?
A WELL, I MEAN GENERALLY I NEVER REALLY TALK TO THE
PROSECUTORS; I JUST DO THE CASE. I WORK THE CASE AND GIVE THEN
THE ANSWER IS THE WAY THAT I ROUTINELY DO ANALYSIS.
Q AND THAT IS WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE, SIR?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHEN YOU ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT EDTA FROM A PRESERVED TUBE WAS PRESENT IN THE
EVIDENCE STAINS FROM THE GATE AND THE SOCK, DID YOU THEN CONDUCT
ALL OF THE TESTS THAT YOU IN YOUR JUDGMENT THOUGHT WERE
SCIENTIFICALLY APPROPRIATE TO CONDUCT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT ANSWER DID YOU OBTAIN?
A I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE BLOODSTAINS ON THE
SOCK AND THE GATE DID NOT COME FROM PRESERVED BLOOD.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, MAY I MARK THE CHARTS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, I HADN'T COMPLETED -- IF
I MAY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: WHICH CHARTS DO YOU NEED TO MARK?
MS. CLARK: THESE WERE FROM YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD
LIKE TO --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, I WAS DIRECTING MY COMMENTS TO MISS
CLARK.
MR. BLASIER: I'M SORRY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE CHARTS THAT REFLECT THE GRAPHS THAT REFLECT THE
RUNS FOR THE EVIDENCE STAINS FOR THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM,
543-E, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF 543 A AND C.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(PEO'S 543-E FOR ID = CHART)
MS. CLARK: 543-F IS THE COMBINATION OF THE CHARTS 543-D
AND B.
(PEO'S 543-F FOR ID = CHART)
MS. CLARK: 544-E IS A COMBINATION OF THE CHARTS 544-A AND
B.
(PEO'S 544-E FOR ID = CHART)
MS. CLARK: AND 544-F IS A COMBINATION OF THE CHARTS 544-C
AND D.
THE COURT: FINE. THANK YOU.
(PEO'S 544-F FOR ID = CHART)
MS. CLARK: MAY I CONCLUDE WITH ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: PROCEED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MS. CLARK: NEVER MIND, YOUR HONOR. I'M SURE IT WILL
BECOME GERMANE AGAIN.
I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q AGENT MARTZ, YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT YOU HAD NO
BIAS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER EITHER FOR THE PROSECUTION OR FOR THE
DEFENSE.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IS THAT YOUR STATE OF MIND AS YOU SIT THERE TODAY?
A YES.
Q NOW, YESTERDAY MORNING DO YOU RECALL MY ASKING YOU
QUESTIONS AND YOU ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE BREAK?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL AFTER THE BREAK YOU CHANGED YOUR
DEMEANOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A I THINK I DID, YES.
Q AND BY THE WAY, DURING DR. RIEDERS' TESTIMONY YOU
WERE CONSULTING WITH THE PROSECUTORS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF
THAT EXAMINATION, WERE YOU NOT?
A I THINK -- YES, I WAS.
Q YOU WERE PROVIDING THEM WITH POSSIBLE QUESTIONS OR
ISSUES THAT THEY SHOULD RAISE?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND YOU WERE PROVIDING THEM WITH -- MISS CLARK WITH
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT QUESTIONS SHE MIGHT RAISE AND WHAT
TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES SHE MIGHT RAISE?
A WELL, LIKE WITH THEM, WITH YOU, ANYTHING THAT YOU
ASKED AND THEY ASKED, I PROVIDED.
Q DURING EACH BREAK WERE YOU DOWN THERE CONFERRING WITH
THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE WHILE DR. RIEDERS WAS TESTIFYING?
A I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EACH BREAK. I DID CONFER WITH
THEM WHEN THEY ASKED QUESTIONS, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE CONFERRING WITH THEM DURING THE COURSE
OF MY QUESTIONING OF DR. RIEDERS, CORRECT?
A WHEN THEY ASKED QUESTIONS I ANSWERED THEM.
Q AND DURING THE BREAK YESTERDAY MORNING DID YOU MEET
WITH THE PROSECUTORS?
A I STEPPED DOWN AND TALKED WITH THEM, YES.
Q DID YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY?
A UMM, SOMEWHAT.
Q AND YOU DECIDED AFTER THE BREAK THAT YOU NEEDED TO BE
MUCH MORE OF AN ADVOCATE, DIDN'T YOU?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DID YOU DECIDE AT THE BREAK THAT YOU
NEEDED TO BE MUCH OF AN ADVOCATE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU HAD TO BE MUCH MORE
AGGRESSIVE?
A I THINK I DECIDED THAT I HAD TO BE MORE TRUTHFUL. I
WAS NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH WITH YES AND NO ANSWERS.
Q SO YOU DECIDED TO CHANGE YOUR DEMEANOR?
A WELL, I DECIDED THAT I WANTED TO TELL THE WHOLE
TRUTH.
Q YOU INDICATED THAT THE ONLY OTHER TIME YOU TESTIFIED
IN THIS CASE FOR THE DEFENSE IS WHERE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WERE
CHARGED WITH MURDERING A CIVILIAN?
A I WON'T SAY THAT IS THE ONLY TIME. THAT IS THE TIME
I REMEMBER. THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I REMEMBER.
Q DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR 17 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH
THE FBI, YOU HAVE NEVER TESTIFIED FOR THE DEFENSE OTHER THAN THAT
AND OTHER THAN YESTERDAY AND TODAY?
A I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OTHER TIME.
Q WHEN I MET WITH YOU IN WASHINGTON ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO
DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PROSECUTORS AFTER THAT
MEETING?
A I'M SURE I DID.
Q DID YOU DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THE MEETING THAT WE
HAD?
A I'M SURE THAT I TALKED TO THEM SOMEWHAT ABOUT IT. I
DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT I TOLD THEM.
Q DID YOU --
A I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE TALKED
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE SPECIFICS.
I DID TALK TO THEM AFTER OUR MEETING.
Q DID YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
YOU THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO RAISE AND HOW YOU MIGHT CONFRONT THEM?
A I MAY HAVE MENTIONED SOMETHING, BUT I WAS CONFUSED.
AS I TOLD YOU WHEN YOU CAME TO WASHINGTON, I DIDN'T KNOW WHY YOU
WERE CALLING ME TO TESTIFY.
Q NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME ONE TIME IN YOUR 17 YEARS WHERE
AFTER YOU TALKED TO THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT A CASE THAT YOU WORKED
ON THAT YOU CALLED THE DEFENSE TO TALK TO THEM AND EXPLAIN THE
ISSUES TO THEM?
A COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
Q CAN YOU TELL ME ONE TIME IN YOUR 17 YEARS EXPERIENCE
WHEN YOU MET WITH THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT A CASE THAT YOU FOLLOWED
THAT UP BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENSE TO TELL THEM WHAT YOU
DISCUSSED?
A I'VE HAD OCCASIONS WHERE I'VE TALKED TO THE DEFENSE
AFTER I'VE TALKED TO THE PROSECUTION.
Q DO YOU MAKE THAT A PRACTICE OF LETTING THE DEFENSE
KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE CONFERRED WITH THE PROSECUTION ABOUT TEST
RESULTS?
A NO.
Q DO YOU MAKE IT A PRACTICE TO LET DEFENSE COUNSEL KNOW
WHAT ISSUES THEY MIGHT WANT TO RAISE WITH YOU OR WITH OTHER
EXPERTS?
A NO.
Q IS IT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE NO
PROSECUTORIAL BIAS HERE?
A I HAVE NO BIAS WHATSOEVER. EVERY QUESTION THAT YOU
ASK AND THEY ASKED, I ANSWER.
Q NOW, YOU WERE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER
DR. RIEDERS COULD HAVE PERFORMED SOME OF THE TESTS THAT I WAS
ASKING YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY TO VALIDATE WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO
LOSE BY WAY OF EDTA GIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING -- WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY --
WHEN YOU DESIGN A TEST LIKE THIS, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO IT
VALIDATE IT?
A THE TEST VALIDATES ITSELF BASICALLY. YOU RUN
STANDARDS AND CONTROLS. IN CHEMICAL ANALYSIS THE INSTRUMENTATION
IS ALL ESTABLISHED. IT HAS BEEN VALIDATED.
AND IN A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS THAT WE DO IN THE
LABORATORY, WE IDENTIFY UNKNOWN CHEMICALS ON A DAILY BASIS AND
THE INSTRUMENTATION HAS ALL BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THE
IDENTIFICATION OF A CHEMICAL HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON ITS
MASS SPECTRUM AND WE ROUTINELY DO THAT AND THAT IS WHAT I DID IN
THIS CASE.
THE VALIDATION IS JUST TO SHOW THAT THE CHEMICAL YOU
ARE LOOKING FOR CAN BE EXTRACTED. THE IDENTIFICATION IS BASED ON
MASS SPECTRUM WHICH IS WELL-ESTABLISHED, BUT IN ORDER TO GET TO
THE MASS SPECTRUM YOU HAVE TO EXTRACT IT WHAT SO YOU HAVE TO DO
IS SHOW BY USING A CONTROL THAT YOU CAN EXTRACT THAT CHEMICAL AND
IDENTIFY IT.
Q AGENT MARTZ, YOUR VALIDATION, YOUR SELF-VALIDATION,
HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE?
A WELL, I THINK I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN I TESTIFIED THE
OTHER DAY, BUT I WORK CERTAINLY MORE THAN A DAY AND PROBABLY LESS
THAN A WEEK IN DEVELOPING A PROCEDURE THAT WOULD EXTRACT THE EDTA
OUT OF BLOOD.
Q AND THAT VALIDATION CONCERNED JUST DETERMINING
WHETHER TAKING BLOOD FROM AN EDTA TUBE, PUTTING IT ON A SWATCH
AND THEN LETTING IT DRY FOR AN HOUR AND TESTING IT, WHETHER YOU
COULD DETECT EDTA, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU DIDN'T DO ANY VALIDATION STUDY WHATSOEVER TO
DETERMINE WHAT SAMPLE PRESERVED UNDER THE WAY THESE SAMPLES WERE
PRESERVED, COLLECTED, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, YOU DID NO
VALIDATION STUDY WHATSOEVER TO DETERMINE WHAT IF ANY LOSS YOU
MIGHT HAVE IN EDTA, DID YOU?
A IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS
NECESSARY. WHAT I HAD WAS THE BEST SCENARIO. I HAD --
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MOVE TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU DIDN'T --
THE COURT: HE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
MR. BLASIER: I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, WHEN I MET WITH YOU IN
WASHINGTON I HAD REQUESTED YOUR DIGITAL DATA, HADN'T I?
A YES.
Q IT HAD LONG SINCE BEEN DESTROYED, HADN'T IT?
A YES, IT HAD.
Q NOW, YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
THE 1954 STUDY AND YOU FELT THAT THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS WITH
THAT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED WAS THAT THEY FOUND
THIRTY PARTS PER MILLION EDTA IN THE BLOODSTREAM AT SOME POINT?
A THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION, YES.
Q UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DID THEY FIND THIRTY PARTS PER
MILLION EDTA IN SOMEONE'S BLOODSTREAM?
A WHEN THEY INJECTED IT INTO THEIR -- I THINK IT WAS
INTRAMUSCULAR OR INTRAVENOUS.
Q INJECTED DIRECTLY INTO THE BLOOD?
A YES. ONE OF THE TIMES IT WAS, YES.
Q HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO WORK ITS WAY OUT OF THE
SYSTEM, ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT WAS A SHORT
TIME PERIOD I BELIEVE.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MR. SIMPSON OR
MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD INJECTED EDTA AT ANY TIME ON JUNE
12TH?
A I WOULD HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
Q NOW, YOU REFERRED TO THAT STUDY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
EXPLAINING THAT THEY FOUND THIRTY PARTS PER MILLION, CORRECT?
A THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION. THEY FOUND THIRTY PARTS PER
MILLION, YES.
Q BUT YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE
STUDY FOUND ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF EDTA TAKEN BY MOUTH GETS INTO
THE BLOOD?
A I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY FOUND IN
THAT STUDY.
Q AND DO YOU ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THAT CITE IS IN A
TEXTBOOK THAT IS USED IN EVERY MEDICAL SCHOOL, THAT FIVE PERCENT
OF WHAT YOU INGEST GETS INTO THE BLOOD?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: BASED ON ALL THE RESEARCH THAT I DID, ALL THE
LATEST LITERATURE REFERS BACK TO THE STUDY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: 1954 AND THAT IS WHERE THE FIVE
PERCENT COMES FROM?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE NO BETTER LITERATURE OTHER THAN THAT, DO
YOU?
A THAT IS THE ONLY LITERATURE THAT IS AVAILABLE.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY -- YOU DON'T HAVE A DEGREE IN
PHARMACOLOGY, DO YOU?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q DID YOU TAKE ANY COURSES IN YOUR UNDERGRADUATE IN
PHARMACOLOGY?
A NOT SPECIFICALLY.
Q AND YOUR DEGREE, IS IT IN BIOLOGY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY, DO YOU?
A I HAVE A MINOR.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF A DEGREE IN PHARMACOKINETICS?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS?
A OH, NOT SPECIFICALLY.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT PHARMACOKINETICS IS?
A NOT SPECIFICALLY.
Q WHEN YOU READ THAT PARTICULAR STUDY, DID YOU HAVE ANY
-- DID YOU -- DID YOU RECOGNIZE IT, THAT IT WAS A STUDY IN
PHARMACOKINETICS?
A WELL, I WAS LOOKING AT THE PAPER BECAUSE IT WAS THE
STUDY OF EDTA. THAT WAS MY INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE PAPER.
Q DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
TOP CRITICIZE THAT PAPER?
A I DIDN'T CRITICIZE THE PAPER. THE PAPER CRITICIZED
ITSELF AND I WAS JUST BRINGING THAT UP.
Q THAT WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PAPER?
A WELL, THE LAST PARAGRAPH SAID THAT THERE WERE SOME
PROBLEMS.
Q WHAT DID IT SAY THE PROBLEMS WERE?
A IT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU DEFENSE 1268. THAT
IS THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE SAYING HAS
CONTRARY DATA TO THE ABSORPTION RATE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: COULD WE LOOK AT THIS ON THE ELMO AGAIN.
Q TELL ME WHERE IN THAT PARAGRAPH SAYS THAT THERE IS
CONTRARY INFORMATION ABOUT ABSORPTION RATE?
A IT SAYS:
"THE LOW ABSORPTION AFTER ORAL ADMINISTRATION IS
VERY SURPRISING IN VIEW OF THE FINDING THAT THE MATERIAL IS
AFFECTED BY THE" -- I'M HAVING TROUBLE. CAN YOU FOCUS THAT?
MS. CLARK: THE MONITOR.
THE WITNESS: IS THAT WHAT IT IS?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: "YTTRIUM AND LEAD"?
A "BY THE ROUTE OF" -- I CAN'T READ IT ON THIS MONITOR.
Q LET'S TRY AGAIN.
A "IS AFFECTED BY THE ROUTE IN ACCELERATING THE
EXCRETION OF YTTRIUM AND LEAD. THERE IS NO SATISFACTORILY READILY
APPARENT EXPLANATION AT THIS PRESENT" --
Q I'M SORRY, WERE YOU DONE?
A YES.
Q WHICH PART OF THAT SAYS THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT
ABSORPTION RATES?
A WELL, IT SAYS, THE LOW ABSORPTION OF AN ORAL
ADMINISTRATION IS VERY SURPRISING BECAUSE IN ANOTHER PAPER THEY
WERE ABLE TO REMOVE YTTRIUM AND LEAD AND TO REMOVE THAT YOU HAVE
TO GET INTO THE BLOODSTREAM.
Q WHAT DID THAT OTHER PAPER SAY ABOUT THE ABSORPTION
RATE?
A IT DIDN'T SAY.
Q BUT IT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT DOCUMENT THAT
THAT SAYS THERE IS A DIFFERENT ABSORPTION RATE THAN FIVE PERCENT?
A IT APPLIES A DIFFERENT ABSORPTION RATE BECAUSE TO
EFFECTIVELY REMOVE A CHEMICAL FROM THE BLOOD YOU HAVE TO GET INTO
THE BLOOD.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY, WHEN MISS CLARK WAS
ASKING YOU ABOUT POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR WHAT YOU FOUND THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH EDTA ON THE BACK GATE AND THE SOCK, YOU MENTIONED
AN ARTIFACT DUE TO THE MATRIX EFFECT.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A RIGHT, CORRECT.
Q DID YOU TRY TO CHECK THAT OUT?
A YES, I DID, BUT --
Q DIDN'T PAN OUT, DID IT?
A I WASN'T ABLE TO DUPLICATE BLOOD WITHOUT IT BEING
BLOOD.
Q SO YOU TRIED TO CHECK THAT HYPOTHESIS AND YOU WEREN'T
ABLE TO CHECK IT OUT, CORRECT?
A WELL, IN THE TIME CONSTRAINT I DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT
TIME TO CHECK THAT OUT.
Q YOU TOLD ME, DID YOU NOT, THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT
WAS THE EXPLANATION AT ALL?
A IT IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL
EXPLANATIONS THAT I MENTIONED. THAT IS A POSSIBLE ONE.
Q YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT ONE WAS LIKELY
AT ALL, DIDN'T YOU?
A I DON'T THINK IT IS LIKELY.
I TALKED TO SOME OTHER EXPERTS THAT THOUGHT IT WAS
LIKELY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, LET ME SHOW YOU
PROSECUTION 544-E.
INCIDENTALLY, YESTERDAY IN THE MORNING, BEFORE THE
BREAK YOU TESTIFIED THAT WHAT YOU SAW ON THE BACK GATE AND ON THE
SOCK WAS CONSISTENT WITH EDTA, CORRECT?
A NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID ONE OF THE CHARTS HAD
AN ION THAT WAS CONSISTENT, OR IF I DIDN'T, THAT IS WHAT I MEANT
TO SAY.
Q WELL, YOU SET UP THE EXPERIMENT. THIS IS THE
EVIDENCE FROM THE BACK GATE, IS IT NOT?
A RIGHT.
Q THERE IS AN ION THERE AND THAT IS THE SAME ION YOU
WOULD GET WITH EDTA THERE AND THE PARENT ION IS THERE, ISN'T IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THE RETENTION TIME IS CONSISTENT EVEN THOUGH, AS
YOU STATED, YOUR CHROMATOGRAPHY WAS NOT PARTICULARLY DEFINITIVE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, THE EXHIBIT THAT WE HAVE ON THE ELMO NOW IS THE
GATE CHART, CORRECT, WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING FOR THE 160 ION,
RIGHT, AT THE BOTTOM?
A YES.
Q COMPARED TO THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM ABOVE IT,
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q NOW, THAT IS THE SAME SAMPLE, ISN'T IT?
A YES.
Q IN THOSE TWO RUNS?
A YES.
Q WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 160 ION IN THE FULL DAUGHTER
SPECTRUM?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IS IT NO LONGER THERE?
A IT DIDN'T SHOW UP.
Q IS IT NO LONGER THERE?
A IT DIDN'T SHOW UP IN THE DAUGHTER SPECTRUM.
Q DID YOU CHANGE THE SAMPLE IN SOME FASHION THAT WOULD
REMOVE THE 160 ION?
A NO.
Q SO CAN YOU ASSUME THAT IT IS STILL THERE IN THE FULL
DAUGHTER?
A NO. AS YOU MENTIONED WITH THE CAMERA WITH DR.
RIEDERS, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT ONE SPECIFIC ION, IT IS EASIER TO
SEE, BUT IF YOU ARE DOING A FULL SCAN YOU MAY NOT SEE ALL THE
IONS, BUT FOR ME TO IDENTIFY IT IT HAS TO BE PRESENT.
Q ARE YOU SAYING THE 160 IS NOT PRESENT IN THE FULL
DAUGHTER SPECTRUM OF THE SAME SAMPLE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT IT IS NOT THERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THE
CHART?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q SO IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE
ION, IT CAN'T BE THERE?
A I CAN'T IDENTIFY IT IF I CAN'T SEE IT.
Q CAN IT BE THERE AND YOU ARE JUST NOT SEEING IT?
A SURE. YOU CAN ALWAYS BE BELOW YOUR DETECTION LIMIT.
Q AND IF YOU HAD REALLY BEEN LOOKING FOR THE 132 ION,
YOU COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME KIND OF SCAN YOU DID FOR THE 160,
COULDN'T YOU HAVE?
A SURE.
Q DID YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN'T WANT TO FIND THE 132 ION, DID YOU?
A NO, IT WASN'T THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO FIND THE 132 ION.
I NEEDED THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM.
IN FINDING THE 132 ION, IT WOULD JUST BE LIKE FINDING
THE 160 ION BY ITSELF. IT COULD BE A SCREENING TEST.
IN ORDER TO CONFIRM I NEED ALL THE IONS TOGETHER IN A
CERTAIN RATIO.
Q YOU SAID YESTERDAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE
AN INTERNAL STANDARD, CORRECT?
A I DON'T KNOW ABOUT LOVE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN
INTERNAL STANDARD, YES.
Q YOU TOLD ME IN WASHINGTON YOU WOULD HAVE LOVED TO
HAVE ONE?
A YES, ONE OR THE OTHER.
Q THAT WOULD HAVE MADE YOUR TEST FROM A
NON-QUANTITATIVE TEST TO AT LEAST SOME MEASURE OF QUANTITATION,
CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE I DO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF QUANTITATION
ALREADY.
Q AGENT MARTZ, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS NOT DESIGNED
TO BE A QUANTITATIVE TEST, DIDN'T YOU?
A IT WASN'T, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN USE IT
TO QUANTITATE.
Q WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF USING AN INTERNAL STANDARD?
A TO GET PRECISE QUANTITATION.
Q NOW, YOU ARE AWARE NOW, AREN'T YOU, THAT THERE IS AN
INTERNAL STANDARD THAT IS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE THAT YOU COULD
HAVE USED?
A WELL, YOU SHOWED ME A BOOK YESTERDAY. I STILL
HAVEN'T CALLED THE MANUFACTURER TO CONFIRM THAT IT IS AVAILABLE,
BUT DID YOU DO THAT? IS IT AVAILABLE?
Q DID YOU LOOK AT THE CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS
IN THE BOOK?
A I LOOKED AT A VERY CLOSE -- I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT VERY
CLOSELY, BUT I SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOWED ME THAT YOU SAID IT
WAS EDTA.
Q AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN?
A IF I COULD.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, LET ME SHOW YOU --
PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE A COPY OF THIS PAGE AS WELL AS THE COVER
MARKED AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT.
THE CLERK: 1270.
THE COURT: 1270.
MR. BLASIER: 12 --
THE COURT: WHAT IS THE TITLE?
MR. BLASIER: "CAMBRIDGE ISOTOPE LABORATORIES, STABLE
ISOTOPES, 1994-1995."
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(DEFT'S 1270 FOR ID = ARTICLE)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARKS, LET ME SHOW YOU FROM
THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 49 OF THAT CATALOGUE, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE
AN INTERNAL STANDARD AVAILABLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE USED WITH YOUR
TESTING?
A YES, IT DOES.
Q HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
A OH, $690.00.
Q HOW MUCH WOULD YOU HAVE NEEDED TO USE?
A OH, GENERALLY TO WEIGH SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE AT
LEAST TEN MILLIGRAMS.
Q TEN MILLIGRAMS?
A YES.
Q HOW MUCH DID $690.00 BUY?
A WAS IT A GRAM? I CAN'T REMEMBER. A GRAM. I COULD
HAVE BOUGHT THE SMALLER STANDARD, YES.
Q AND WHAT DID THE SMALLER STANDARD COST?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER. $115.00.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU HAVE MR. LEE MAKE A COPY
FOR US, PLEASE.
MR. BLASIER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YOU WERE SHOWN QUITE A FEW
CHARTS BY THE PROSECUTION, THE RED BAR CHARTS, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ARE YOU LOOKING FOR 552?
MR. BLASIER: ANYONE OF THE RED CHARTS.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE ONE I'M SURE, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU 552.
AGENT MARTZ, YOU PREPARED THIS, AS WELL AS SEVERAL
OTHER CHARTS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE QUANTITIES BY ION COUNT,
DID YOU NOT?
A IT WAS PREPARED TO SHOW THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PRESERVED AND NON-PRESERVED BLOOD.
Q TO COMPARE ION COUNTS BETWEEN ONE SAMPLE AND ANOTHER,
CORRECT?
A I USED ION COUNTS FOR THE COMPARISON, YES.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOUR ION COUNTS CAN
FLUCTUATE BECAUSE OF THE VAGARIES OF THE INSTRUMENT BY FOUR-FOLD,
CAN'T THEY?
A THEY DID OVER THE PERIOD OF -- THAT ONE DAY, YES.
Q SO YOU COULD ADJUST THOSE EITHER TO YOU MAKE THEM
FOUR TIMES BIGGER OR FOUR TIMES SMALLER AND THAT WOULD STILL BE
WITHIN THE REALM OF THE TOLERANCE OF YOUR MACHINE?
FAIR ENOUGH?
A WELL, THAT IS A BIG VARIANCE. YOU GENERALLY DON'T
GET THAT LARGE, BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT DAY IT WAS FOUR-FOLD.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ABOUT THE EXHIBIT?
THE COURT: SURE. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
AND BY THE WAY, MR. BLASIER, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO
3:30 BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME CHARTS THAT I MADE
FOR TODAY. YOU ARE OBJECTING TO --
MS. CLARK: CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS IS. WE RAN THE
PAINT FROM THE METAL CAN AND THE GATE ON THE 28TH. THESE ARE THE
TWO AREA ION COUNTS THAT HE GOT.
HE HAS JUST TESTIFIED THAT THIS COULD BE FOUR TIMES
AS BIG OR FOUR TIMES AS SMALL. I HAVE ADJUSTED IT FOUR TIMES AS
SMALL.
THIS IS BASED ON HIS STATEMENT THAT THE QUANTITY USED
IN BOTH SAMPLES IS IDENTICAL, IS TWO MICROLITERS.
I INTEND TO SHOW, AND DR. RIEDERS WILL TESTIFY, THAT
THAT QUANTIZATION IS NOT RELIABLE AND IT COULD BE TEN TIMES LESS.
I HAVE MADE THIS FOUR TIMES -- I HAVE CHANGED IT BY A
FACTOR OF FOUR TO COMPARE THOSE TWO UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. IT
IS A HYPOTHETICAL.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS COMPLETELY MISSTATING THE
TESTIMONY.
HE -- FIRST OF ALL, HE NEVER SAID HE COULD ADJUST IT
TO MAKE IT FOUR TIMES MORE OR LESS.
WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT THERE IS VARIANCE AT DIFFERENT
POINTS IN THE DAY AND THAT THERE WERE TWO RUNS THAT MR. BLASIER
SHOWED, TO WHICH THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, SHOWING THAT THIS WAS
A RUN IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY, THAT WAS AT ONE PEAK -- AT ONE
LEVEL, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THERE HAD BEEN THIRTY
SAMPLES RUN THROUGH THAT COLUMN IT WAS FOUR TIMES LESS, AND THAT
IS BECAUSE, AS THE AGENT HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED, THE COLUMN
BECOMES LESS SENSITIVE BECAUSE IT GETS DIRTY BECAUSE OF THE ALL
THE CONSTANT RUNS BEING SHOT THROUGH IT.
AND WHEN YOU GO FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT IT CAN BE
ALSO A DISCREPANCY IN THE QUANTITATION.
NEVERTHELESS, WHAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH, AND WHAT
THIS DELIBERATELY MISSTATES, IS THAT WHEN YOU RUN THE SAMPLES AT
THE SAME TIME, AND YOU MUST DO THAT, YOU WILL GET AN ACCURATE
RATIO.
YOU WILL NEVER GET A SITUATION WHERE ONE SAMPLE IS
RUN FOUR TIMES LESS AND ONE SAMPLE IS RUN FOUR TIMES MORE THAN IN
THE SAME RUN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, WITHIN MINUTES OF EACH OTHER,
SO THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO THE EVIDENCE.
IT IS MISS MISLEADING, CONFUSING AND IT IS DECEPTIVE
BECAUSE IT IS TO THE CONTRARY OF THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: NO. THIS IS NOT BASED ON -- THE GATE SAMPLE
HERE IS NOT BASED ON MULTIPLYING THAT BY FOUR BECAUSE OF VARIANCE
IN THE MACHINERY.
THAT IS BASED ON HIS ERRONEOUS ESTIMATE OF THE
QUANTITY. IF HIS QUANTITY IS WRONG, IF HE SAYS TWO MICROLITERS
AND IT IS REALLY HALF A MICROLITER, IT IS NOT GOING TO DO WITH
THE VARIATION IN THE MACHINERY.
HE HAS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAS MUCH VARIATION.
SHE IS FREE TO COME BACK AND SAY THAT IT COULD BE
FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE HAS TESTIFIED
TO.
AND DR. RIEDER WILL SAY ALSO THAT THAT IS NOT AN
UNREASONABLE VARIATION GIVEN ELECTROSPRAY AND THE WAY HE DID THIS
TESTING, SO THIS IS A WAY OF DEMONSTRATING THAT.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS HIGHLY -- THIS IS ACTUALLY IN
CONTRAVENTION TO THE TESTIMONY AND IT IS A DECEPTIVE GRAPH THAT
IS GOING TO GIVE TO THE JURY AN IDEA THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN
THAT DR. RIEDERS REALLY CAN'T SAY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T OPERATE THAT
MACHINE.
AND THAT IS THE LIMITATIONS OF HIS TESTIMONY. HE CAN
SAY A LOT THINGS, BUT HE IS NOT AN OPERATOR AND HE IS REALLY NOT
COMPETENT TO MAKE THESE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THIS MACHINE
OPERATES.
THIS MAN IS. AGENT MARTZ IS.
AND WHAT THIS DOES IS TAKE AND DISTORT HIS TESTIMONY
IN A VERY GRAPHIC WAY SO THAT THE JURY IS DELIBERATELY DECEIVED
ABOUT WHAT THE NATURE OF THE QUANTITATION ISSUE IS.
QUANTITATION ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH
BEING -- COMPARING RUNS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, NOT COMPARING RUNS AT
THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU WILL GET THE RELATIVE RATIOS IN THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BLASIER: THIS IS BASED ON HIS DATA.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD? I WOULD LIKE FOR
THE --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY.
MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK THAT THE COURT CAN POSSIBLY
APPRECIATE HOW DEVASTATING THAT CHART IS AND HOW DECEPTIVE IT IS.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A 402 WITH THE AGENT?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, YOU WERE ASKED SOME
QUESTIONS YESTERDAY BY MISS CLARK REGARDING WHY YOU DON'T BELONG
TO ANY PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES THAT SPECIALIZE IN MASS
SPECTROMETRY OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q AND THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED DOESN'T SPECIALIZE IN
MASS SPEC, DOES IT?
A NO, AND I THINK I SAID THAT.
Q AND I BELIEVE YOUR ANSWER OR YOUR RESPONSE TO MISS
CLARK'S SUGGESTION WAS THAT YOU CAN KEEP UP WITH CURRENT TRENDS
BY TALKING TO YOUR PEERS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A WELL, I THINK I CAN DO IT IN MORE WAYS THAN THAT. I
HAVE TWENTY PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR ME AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY
HIGHLY EDUCATED. I HAVE FOUR PHD'S PRESENTLY WORKING FOR ME.
THEY ARE OUT ATTENDING A LOT OF MEETINGS, PRESENTING
PAPERS. WE HAVE A STAFF AT QUANTICO, A LOT OF PHD'S THAT DO A
LOT OF RESEARCH AND WE KEEP IN CONTACT WITH THEM.
WE ARE CONSTANTLY BRINGING PEOPLE INTO THE FBI
ACADEMY FOR TRAINING. THE FBI IS CONSTANTLY SENDING PEOPLE
OUTSIDE TO GIVE SPEECHES, LECTURES, TALKS, PAPERS.
SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT I
DON'T BELONG TO, I HAVE ATTENDED SOME OF THEIR MEETINGS. I HAVE
CO-AUTHORED PAPERS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THOSE MEETINGS.
SO WITH THE STAFF THAT I HAVE, IT IS VERY EASY TO
KEEP UP BECAUSE WE HAVE 20 PEOPLE THAT ARE VERY AGGRESSIVELY DO
FORENSIC SCIENCE.
Q AGENT MARTZ, DOES THE FBI PROHIBIT YOU FROM JOINING
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN YOUR SPECIALTY?
A NO, THEY DON'T.
Q SO YOU COULD IF YOU WANTED TO?
A I AM A MEMBER OF ONE, AND LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE UNIT ARE MEMBERS OF OTHER ONES, YES.
Q THE PAPERS THAT YOU SAY YOU PUBLISHED, IS THAT THE
FOUR YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY OVER 17 YEARS?
A WELL, THERE IS FOUR THERE AND THEN I HAVE TWO PAPERS
THAT ARE BEING PUBLISHED RIGHT NOW.
Q NOW, DOES THE FBI REQUIRE THAT YOU OBTAIN AN
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY OR TOXICOLOGY TO BECOME A
CHEMIST AND TOXICOLOGIST?
A TO WORK IN THE CHEMISTRY UNIT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF CHEMISTRY HOURS THAT ARE REQUIRED. I MET THAT
SPECIFICATION. I HAD EXTENSIVE TRAINING IN CHEMISTRY IN COLLEGE.
Q IS THAT ANSWER TO THAT NO. THAT THE FBI DOESN'T
REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN IT?
A YES, EITHER CHEMISTRY, TOXICOLOGY OR EQUIVALENT.
Q WHICH INCLUDES BIOLOGY?
A WHICH INCLUDES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS IN
CHEMISTRY.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, YESTERDAY I ASKED YOU SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR -- THE BLOOD TEST THAT YOU RAN ON YOUR
BLOOD.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND I MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY
THAT MAYBE THE EDTA OR THE EDTA LIKE SUBSTANCE THAT APPEARS IN
YOUR BLOOD MAY HAVE COME FROM THE TUBE ITSELF.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q HAD YOU THOUGHT OF THAT WHEN YOU DID THAT LITTLE
EXPERIMENT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DO YOU THINK IT IS A REASONABLE POINT TO CONSIDER?
A UMM, NO, NOT REALLY.
Q BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK OF IT AT ALL, DID YOU?
A NO.
Q WHEN YOU GOT THE STAIN FROM THE BACK GATE YOU NEVER
INQUIRED AT ALL WHAT CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THAT STAIN MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SUBJECTED TO EITHER BEFORE IT WAS COLLECTED OR AFTER,
CORRECT?
A I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD IS WHETHER OR
NOT DNA WAS IDENTIFIED, BECAUSE IN MY OPINION IF DNA WAS PRESENT,
THE EDTA WOULD STILL BE PRESENT.
Q SO YOU ASKED NO QUESTIONS AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH THAT STAIN GOT THERE AND MAY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
PRIOR TO COLLECTION?
A ONLY THAT IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS BLOOD AND HAD DNA
PRESENT.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE
EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT MIGHT HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL, DID YOU?
A IN MY OPINION EDTA IS A VERY STABLE CHEMICAL AND WHEN
DRIED IN A BLOODSTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD NOT AFFECT IT.
Q YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT QUESTION AT ALL WHEN YOU
DESIGNED THIS TEST, DID YOU?
A NO. AS I MENTIONED, EDTA IS A VERY STABLE CHEMICAL
AND IN DRIED CONDITIONS IN MY OPINION IT WILL NOT BREAK DOWN IN
THAT SHORT A TIME.
Q I'M SORRY?
A THAT SHORT TIME PERIOD.
Q IS THERE ANY STUDY THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF WITH DRIED
BLOODSTAINS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE EDTA DEGRADES WITH
WEATHERING?
A NO, BUT I CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER THAT MAKES THE
PRESERVED BLOOD TUBES OF EDTA AND THE SHELF LIFE OF THE TUBES
WHEN IT IS IN SOLUTION IS 18 TO 24 MONTHS ABOUT.
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY STUDY THAT
ANYONE HAS EVER DONE ON BLOODSTAINS, DRIED BLOODSTAINS, THAT HAVE
BEEN SUBJECTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR
NOT THAT DIMINISHES THE AMOUNT OF EDTA THAT YOU CAN RECOVER?
A NO.
Q DO YOU KNOW OF ANY SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE THAT IS
RELEVANT AT ALL TO THAT QUESTION?
A PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT IS THE TESTING THAT I HAVE
DONE MYSELF ON SOME OLD BLOODSTAINS FROM 1993 AND ONE FROM 1991.
Q THAT IS THE TEST YOU NEVER WROTE A REPORT ON,
CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID THE PROSECUTION TELL YOU IN THIS CASE THAT YOU
ARE SUPPOSED TO WRITE A REPORT WHEN YOU DO TESTING?
A IN THE LABORATORY WHEN A CASE IS SUBMITTED WE WILL
PERFORM OR SUPPLY A REPORT.
WHEN WE DO RESEARCH WE GENERALLY DON'T SUPPLY A
REPORT.
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WERE YOU INSTRUCTED THAT IF YOU DID
TESTING RELATED TO A CASE THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO WRITE IT UP AS
A REPORT?
A NO.
Q IS IT YOUR PRACTICE THEN, WHEN DO YOU A TEST ON
SOMETHING, EVEN THOUGH IT IS RELATED TO A CASE, YOU DON'T FEEL
THE NECESSITY EVEN TO TAKE NOTES?
A IT WOULD -- IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IF
IT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN REMEMBER READILY, NO, I WOULDN'T.
Q SO THAT THE CRITERION YOU USE IS WHETHER YOU CAN
REMEMBER IT DOWN THE ROAD AS TO WHETHER YOU WRITE ANYTHING DOWN?
A YES. I MEAN, IF I CAN REMEMBER WHAT I DID, I WON'T
WRITE IT DOWN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD
MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ON YOUR ABILITY TO RECOVER EDTA FROM THE
STAIN FROM THE BACK GATE IF WAS PLACED IN A WET CONDITION IN A
PLASTIC BAG?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. NO -- NO
FACTS IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULD DEPEND ON -- WAS IT IN SOLUTION OR
JUST DAMP?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DID YOU EVER ASK THAT QUESTION?
A NO.
Q IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, ISN'T IT?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS. I BELIEVE EDTA IS
STABLE, EVEN IN THOSE CONDITIONS IN THAT SHORT A TIME PERIOD.
Q SO THESE ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU ARE MAKING THAT NOTHING
IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE EDTA ON THE SOCK OR THE BACK GATE WOULD
BE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WERE PUT THERE, COLLECTED,
STORED, HANDLED, SINCE EDTA IS STABLE, THAT ENDS THE INQUIRY AS
FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED?
YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ANY SPECIFIC TESTING ON THAT
QUESTION AT ALL?
MS. CLARK: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, I DID TEST THE BLOOD WHICH IS THIS
SOLUTION, THE KNOWN BLOOD SAMPLE. THAT IS THE BEST CONTROL IN
THE WORLD.
EDTA IS MORE STABLE, IN MY OPINION, AS A STAIN THAN
IT IS IN SOLUTION AND IT SURVIVED IN THE BLOOD SAMPLE, THE KNOWN
SAMPLE THAT I TESTED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, WHICH SAMPLE IS THIS?
A THE K67 AND K68.
Q HOW LONG DID YOU LET THOSE STAINS DRY?
A AS I MENTIONED, EDTA IS MORE STABLE --
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: HOW LONG DID YOU LET THE REFERENCE
BLOOD THAT YOU PUT ON YOUR CONTROLS DRY?
A APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR.
Q HOW SOON AFTER THAT DID YOU TEST IT?
A IT WAS FAIRLY SOON THE FIRST TIME.
Q AN HOUR?
A YES, THAT WOULD BE --
Q I'M SORRY.
DID YOU EVER MAKE ANY INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO THE
SOCK AS TO HOW MANY TIMES IT HAD BEEN HANDLED BY VARIOUS EXPERTS,
CRIMINALISTS, ET CETERA?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY INQUIRY WHATSOEVER TO DETERMINE WHAT
KIND OF LIGHT, ULTRAVIOLET, INFRARED, REGULAR LIGHT IT HAD BEEN
SUBJECTED TO BEFORE YOU GOT IT?
A NO. IN MY OPINION IT WASN'T NECESSARY.
Q DO YOU DO ANY STUDIES TO BACK UP THE NOTION THAT OR
YOUR OPINION THAT LIGHT, DIFFERENT KIND OF LIGHT SOURCES IS NOT
GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON EDTA?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE STUDIES THAT I PERFORMED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ANY STUDIES THAT ANYBODY ELSE HAS
EVER PERFORMED?
A THERE IS STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT IT PASSES THROUGH THE
BODY UNCHANGED AND THAT IS A SEVERE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT.
Q WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q LET ME ASK YOU THIS -- WITHDRAW.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT PASSES THROUGH THE
BODY THAT THAT IS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT DIFFERENT KIND
OF LIGHT ON IT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON IT?
A NO, NO.
Q YOU SAID THAT BY YOUR OWN EXPERIMENT YOU DETERMINED
THAT.
WHAT EXPERIMENT DID YOU DO TO TEST THE EFFECTS OF
DIFFERENT KIND OF LIGHT ON DRIED BLOODSTAINS WITH EDTA IN THEM?
A I DIDN'T DO ANY SPECIFICALLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU WERE AWARE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT
THE SOCK HAD GONE THROUGH INFRARED LIGHT OR DID YOU KNOW THAT?
A I THINK I KNEW THAT BECAUSE AN INFRARED PHOTOGRAPH
HAD BEEN TAKEN.
Q AGENT MARTZ, DID DO YOU ANY EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER YOU COULD AS EFFICIENTLY REMOVE EDTA BLOOD FROM METAL AS
YOU COULD FROM A SWATCH?
A UMM, THE ONLY TESTINGS THAT WERE DONE, PER SAY, WAS
THE GATE WHICH WAS -- THAT WOULDN'T COUNT, BUT THE CAN, I USED
ONE METAL SURFACE. THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAD DONE.
Q YOU DID TWO POSITIVE CONTROLS, DID YOU NOT, FOR THE
GATE; THE CAN --
A YES.
Q -- AND THE SWATCH?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT WAS A CONTROL SWATCH THAT PRESUMABLY HAD
BEEN TAKEN FROM THE GATE NEARBY, NOT PART OF THE BLOODSTAIN?
THAT IS WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING WAS?
A WELL, I HAD PREPARED MY OWN CONTROL SWAB BECAUSE THAT
ONE WASN'T LARGE ENOUGH. I HAD MENTIONED THAT YESTERDAY, I
BELIEVE.
Q SO YOUR CONTROL THAT YOU USED FOR THE GATE, YOU
DIDN'T EVEN USE THE SWATCH THAT THEY SENT YOU, THAT WAS THEIR
CONTROL SWATCH?
A NO, WE HAD MENTIONED THAT YESTERDAY.
Q SO YOU USED A SWATCH THAT -- AND YOU DON'T KNOW
WHETHER IT WAS THE SAME KIND OF MATERIAL, THE SAME THICKNESS, DO
YOU?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I ANSWERED THAT YESTERDAY, NO.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: SO YOU ONLY RAN -- TWO TIMES YOU RAN
THAT CONTROL THAT YOU JUST TOLD US ABOUT THAT YOU MADE ON YOUR
MATERIAL AND THE CAN TO SEE HOW MUCH -- WHAT YOUR ION COUNT WOULD
BE, HOW MUCH EDTA YOU GOT OUT, CORRECT?
A FOR THE SOCK -- FOR THE GATE?
Q THE GATE.
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SLIDE
PRESENTATION MARKED NEXT.
THE CLERK: 1271.
MR. BLASIER: 1271.
(DEFT'S 1271-A FOR ID = SLIDE)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, THAT IS 1271-A ON THE
SCREEN. COULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
DOES THAT REPRESENT CHARTS 4085, THE CONTROL THAT YOU
JUST TALKED ABOUT WHERE YOU USED YOUR OWN FABRIC?
A YES.
Q AND 4043 IS THE ONE YOU DID ON THE CAN, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DAYS, RIGHT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR ION COUNT FOR THE CONTROL ON THE
CLOTH?
A A LITTLE OVER EIGHT MILLION.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR ION COUNT ON THE CONTROL YOU DID ON
THE CAN?
A A LITTLE OVER THREE MILLION.
Q AND THERE IS APPROXIMATELY A THREE-FOLD DIFFERENCE ON
THOSE TWO, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ISN'T IT ACCURATE THAT ONE EXPLANATION -- ONE
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS THAT YOU CAN'T REMOVE EDTA AS
EFFICIENTLY FROM METAL AS YOU CAN FROM CLOTH?
A COULD I GIVE MY EXPLANATION FOR IT?
Q NO. I WILL LET YOU GIVE THAT ONE NEXT.
IS THAT ONE REASONABLE EXPLANATION THAT I GAVE YOU?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A REASONABLE
EXPLANATION, NO.
Q DID YOU TEST THAT HYPOTHESIS AT ALL?
A NO.
Q NOW, YOUR INCLINATION IS WHAT, THAT IT IS THE
VARIATION IN THE MACHINE?
A IT IS THE VARIATION OVER THE DAY AND AS I MENTION,
WHEN I DO A CONTROL -- WHENEVER I PERFORM THIS EXPERIMENT WE ARE
CUTTING A PIECE OF A FABRIC.
OKAY. I DON'T KNOW -- OR ON THAT DAY THE SIZE THAT I
CUT, THE CONTROL IS GOING TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE KNOWN, OR
THE Q AND THE KNOWN ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME.
ON A DIFFERENT DAY I MAY CUT SOMETHING A LITTLE
LARGER OR A LITTLE SMALLER.
I DIDN'T HAVE A PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT OR A SCALE TO
WEIGH THE EXACT SIZE THAT I TOOK, SO WHAT I TOOK WAS RELATIVE
SIZES, AND THE SIZE THE ONE DAY COULD HAVE BEEN LARGER THAN THE
SIZE THE OTHER DAY, PLUS THE INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONS.
THOSE WOULD BE MY EXPLANATION AS TO THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE ION COUNT.
Q AGENT MARTZ, DID YOU WRITE DOWN IN YOUR WORK PAPERS
THAT YOU USED DIFFERENT SIZES IN DIFFERENT TESTS?
A NO.
Q WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE THAT DOWN? IF YOU CHANGED THE
CONDITIONS FROM ONE TEST TO THE NEXT WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE THAT
DOWN?
A AS I MENTIONED, I DIDN'T CHECK THE CONDITIONS. I
COMPARE THE THE K TO THE Q AND THAT IS WHAT WAS RELEVANT HERE, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE STAINS CAME FROM PRESERVED OR NOT
PRESERVED BLOOD, SO I PREPARED THOSE THE SAME EACH DAY.
Q YOU WROTE DOWN, WHEN YOU DID YOUR FIRST TEST ON
FEBRUARY 22ND, THE SIZES OF THE SAMPLE THAT YOU USED, THE SIZE OF
THE SWATCHES AND YOU WROTE DOWN THAT INFORMATION, DIDN'T YOU?
A I SAID APPROXIMATE.
Q BUT YOU DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING DOWN FOR FEBRUARY 28TH
SHOWING THAT YOU HAD CHANGED THE CONDITIONS USING DIFFERENT
SIZES?
A WELL, I MEAN, IT IS -- IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME
TO CUT THE EXACT SAME SIZE STAIN. I DIDN'T SEE ANY REASON TO
WRITE THAT DOWN.
Q DOES THAT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF SOMETHING THAT YOU
REMEMBERED YOU CHANGED IT SO YOU DIDN'T NEED TO WRITE IT DOWN?
A WELL, I THINK IT IS OBVIOUS THAT I CAN'T CUT THE
EXACT SAME SIZE OF STAIN AND I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER AND THAT IS
WHY I ALWAYS CUT A LARGER AMOUNT OF THE QUESTIONED STAIN THAN I
DID THE KNOWN.
NOW, WHEN I'M CUTTING THEM RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME AT
SAME TIME, I CAN SEE THAT. NOW, FIVE DAYS LATER, TEN DAYS LATER
WHEN I'M CUTTING, I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME ANY MORE. I
AM APPROXIMATING THE SIZE THAT I AM CUTTING.
Q SO YOU MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY CUT A BIGGER SWATCH WHEN
YOU DID THE CAN EXPERIMENT ON THE 28TH THAN YOU HAD FOR THE
POSITIVE CONTROL ON THE 22ND?
A BASED ON MY RESULTS I WOULD SAY.
Q SO YOU ARE USING YOUR RESULTS TO BOOTSTRAP AND FIND
-- AND SAY THAT YOU MUST HAVE USED A SMALLER SAMPLE BECAUSE OF
THE RESULTS?
A TO ME IT IS IMMATERIAL AS LONG AS I USED THE SAME
SIZE EACH DAY.
Q IT COULDN'T BE THE RESULT YOU GOT, NOT BEING ABLE TO
REMOVE EDTA FROM METAL AS EFFICIENTLY AS YOU CAN FROM THE SWATCH?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NOT IN MY OPINION. THAT WOULD NOT BE A
POSSIBILITY.
MR. BLASIER: COULD WE HAVE SLIDE B, PLEASE.
(DEFT'S 1271-B FOR ID = SLIDE)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, AGENT MARTZ ON THE 28TH YOU
TESTED THE GATE, THE EVIDENCE, THE BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE FROM THE
GATE, DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND THIS IS THE SAME POSITIVE CONTROL, THIS IS YOUR
-- YOUR CAN EXPERIMENT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU DID THOSE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, DIDN'T YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IN TIME?
A YES.
Q AND YOUR ION COUNT FOR THE CAN WAS ABOUT THREE
MILLION?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR ION COUNT FOR THE EVIDENCE?
A APPROXIMATELY 200,000.
Q WAS IT 220,000?
A 221.
Q 210?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A CHART THAT SHOWED THOSE
EXPERIMENTS ON THE 28TH FOR THE PROSECUTION, DID YOU?
A I DON'T BELIEVE I DID, NO.
Q THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A THOUSAND-FOLD DIFFERENCE,
DOES IT?
A NO.
Q NOW, AGENT MARTZ, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT ALL OF THESE
CHARTS THAT YOU MADE FOR THE PROSECUTION HAVE AS THEIR BASIS AN
UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION THAT YOU ARE USING THE SAME AMOUNT OF BLOOD
>FROM THE EVIDENCE AS YOU ARE USING IN THE CONTROL?
A WELL, I TRIED TO APPROXIMATE IT, BUT YOU GOT TO
REMEMBER HERE THAT I'M TAKING BLOOD OFF OF A SURFACE AND I DON'T
SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER HOW MUCH I TOOK OFF.
Q WOULDN'T IT BE VERY MISLEADING TO PUT TWO FIGURES ON
A CHART WHEN THEY ARE BASED ON DIFFERENT STARTING AMOUNTS?
A WELL, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHEN I CUT A STAIN IT
IS VERY EASY, I CAN SEE IT, BUT WHEN I TOOK A STAIN OFF OF A CAN
I REMOVED IT WITH A COTTON SWATCH.
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE.
I'M SORRY, MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WOULDN'T IT BE VERY MISLEADING TO
PUT TOGETHER A CHART WHEN YOU ARE STARTING -- WHEN YOU HAVE
DIFFERENT STARTING AMOUNTS FOR THE COMPONENTS OF THAT CHART?
A I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
Q NOW, YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT YOUR ION COUNTS CAN
FLUCTUATE BY AS MUCH AS FOUR TIMES BECAUSE OF THE MACHINERY,
CORRECT?
A I TESTIFIED THEY FLUCTUATE AT THAT AMOUNT ON THE ONE
PARTICULAR DAY.
Q AND I WANT YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY FOR JUST A
MOMENT THAT -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
WHAT IS YOUR ASSUMPTION IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH BLOOD
YOU USED FOR THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE ON FEBRUARY 28TH FOR THE GATE?
A UMM, IT WAS -- IT WAS LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT
THAT I REQUIRED, WHICH IS THE ONE MILLIMETER SQUARED.
Q HOW MUCH LARGER?
A IT WAS PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY -- PROBABLY ONE AND A
HALF BY ONE AND A HALF.
Q WHICH IS HOW MANY SQUARE MILLIMETERS?
A WELL, ONE AND A HALF SQUARE MILLIMETERS.
Q ONE AND A HALF SQUARE?
A RIGHT.
Q AND YOU HAD DETERMINED THAT THE MINIMUM SIZE SWATCH
THAT YOU NEEDED TO USE TO GET A DETECTABLE AMOUNT WAS ONE SQUARE
MILLIMETER?
A WELL, THAT WAS BASED ON NEGATIVE IONS. FOR A POSITIVE
ION I WOULD NEED ONE/TENTH OF THAT, SO IT WOULD BE A VERY SHALL
VERY SMALL.
Q WELL, YOU CALCULATED WHAT SIZE SWATCH YOU NEEDED FOR
THESE TESTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNT OF EDTA BLOOD,
DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q FOR THE NEGATIVE ION?
A YES.
Q YOU DIDN'T DO A DIFFERENT CALCULATION FOR POSITIVE
ION, DID YOU?
A BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE POSITIVE ION IS TEN TIMES
STRONGER OR HAS TEN TIMES THE ABILITY TO DETECT IT, THEN I WOULD
NEED ONE/TENTH THE SIZE STAIN.
Q I WANT YOU TO ASSUME, FOR PURPOSES OF A HYPOTHETICAL,
THAT YOUR ESTIMATE OF THE QUANTITY OF THE BLOOD THAT YOU USE FROM
THE BLOODSTAIN WAS ONLY ONE/FOURTH OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS.
DO YOU HAVE THAT IN MIND?
A YES.
Q AND OBVIOUSLY IF YOU USED MUCH LESS BLOOD YOU WOULD
EXPECT A LOWER ION COUNT, WOULDN'T YOU?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BLASIER: NOW, COULD WE HAVE CHART C, PLEASE.
(PEO'S 1271-C FOR ID = SLIDE)
MS. CLARK: AGAIN OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS TWO
DIFFERENT DAYS THAT ARE REFLECTED. IT IS MISLEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED, OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, THIS IS THE SAME DAY,
ISN'T IT, THE 28TH, THESE TWO TESTS, AREN'T THEY?
A THAT IS WHAT IT IS LABELED, YES.
Q NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: MAY THE WITNESS BE SHOWN THE UNDERLYING GRAPHS,
YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO CHECK YOUR
DATA, AGENT MARTZ?
A ARE THESE THE AREAS OR THE PEAK HEIGHTS?
Q AREAS.
A AREAS.
AND WHAT IS THE FIRST SAMPLE, THE GATE ONE?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THE GATE AND YOUR CAN.
A OKAY.
Q IF YOU HAD OVERESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD FROM THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU STARTED WITH BY FOUR, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE
UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT YOUR ION COUNT SHOULD BE FOUR TIMES
HIGHER TO MAKE THE SAME -- YOU KNOW, TO EQUATE THE AMOUNTS
TOGETHER, CORRECT?
A CAN I LOOK AT MY DATA?
MR. BLASIER: SURE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU RECALL THIS IS THE SAME
SAMPLE FROM THE EARLIER CHART WHERE YOU
GOT --
A THE ONE YOU HAVE GOT LABELED "POSITIVE CONTROL,
4043"?
Q UH-HUH.
A YOU SAID THAT WAS MY AREA?
Q THAT WAS YOUR CAN. THIS IS YOUR CAN REDUCED -- I
HAVEN'T FINISHED THE WHOLE CHART, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE GATE
FIRST.
A OKAY.
Q YOU GOT AN ION COUNT OF 210,000, CORRECT, FROM THE
EARLIER CHART?
A NOW, WHEN YOU REFER TO 4049 --
Q YES.
A -- I HAVE A DIFFERENT CHART LABELED 4049.
Q WELL, YOU HAD AN ION -- OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR ION COUNT
ON 4049?
A 200,000.
Q OKAY. THAT IS THE ONE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT
>FROM THE LAST CHART.
A OKAY.
Q NOW, MY HYPOTHETICAL IS THAT YOU HAVE OVERESTIMATED
THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD BY A FACTOR OF FOUR.
A SO THIS IS NOT MY DATA?
Q THIS IS FOUR TIMES YOUR DATA TO ADJUST FOR THE
QUANTITIES.
MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO --
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY:
IF YOU GOT 210,000 ION COUNT FROM A HALF A MICROLITER
OF BLOOD WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT YOU MIGHT GET IN
THE RANGE OF 800,000 FROM TWO MICROLITERS OF BLOOD?
A NO, BECAUSE WE HAD MENTIONED ONCE BEFORE THIS COULD
BE A MATRIX EFFECT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS OR WHERE IT IS
FROM. YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT.
Q YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT IF YOU USED FOUR TIMES MORE
BLOOD FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD GET FOUR TIMES HIGHER ION
COUNT?
A NO.
Q HOW MUCH MORE WOULD YOU GET?
A IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THIS COMPOUND IS AND THE SOURCE OF
IT. I TOLD YOU I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS AND I DON'T KNOW THE
SOURCE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT FOUR TIMES AS MUCH
BLOOD IS GOING TO GIVE YOU FOUR TIMES AS MUCH EDTA.
CAN WE ASSUME THAT, IF IT IS EDTA BLOOD TO START
WITH?
A YES.
Q AND THE RANGE OF YOUR MEASUREMENT ABILITY ON YOUR
POSITIVE CONTROLS, AS WELL AS THE GATE, YOU COULD HAVE A
FOUR-FOLD DIFFERENCE IN ION COUNT.
NOW, YOU GOT AN ION COUNT OF EIGHT MILLION -- OR I'M
SORRY -- OF THREE MILLION ON THAT I CONTROL, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ONE/FOURTH OF THAT IS 750 THOUSAND, ISN'T IT?
A YES.
Q SO UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION OF THOSE DIFFERENT
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE REALM OF YOUR EXPERIMENTAL
BASIS, YOU MIGHT GET -- IT APPEARS THAT YOU GET THE SAME QUANTITY
IN TERMS OF ION COUNT FROM THE EVIDENCE AS YOU GOT FROM THE KNOWN
EDTA BLOOD, DOESN'T IT?
A NO. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.
Q ARE MY NUMBERS WRONG?
A WELL, YOU ARE TAKING BOTH NUMBERS AND MOVING THEM
FOUR TIMES. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THAT IS AN FACTOR OF EIGHT THEN.
Q WELL, I'M MOVING THE GATE FOUR TIMES BASED ON
QUANTITY, NOT ON THE VARIANCE OF THE MACHINE.
A WELL, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN DO THAT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID YOU TAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARE WITH
EVERYTHING THAT YOU DID IN YOUR EXPERIMENTS?
A I DID.
Q DID YOU TRY TO BE AS CAREFUL AS POSSIBLE WITH
EVERYTHING YOU DID?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THIS BE A GOOD TIME?
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR
MID-AFTERNOON RECESS AT THIS TIME.
REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES.
AGENT MARTZ, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.
YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
(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.
DEPUTY MAGNERA, 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.
AGENT MARTZ, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
AND MR. BLASIER, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR REDIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MR. BLASIER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q AGENT MARTZ, IN YOUR OPINION IS IT APPROPRIATE TO
COMPARE ION COUNTS FROM ONE SAMPLE TO ION COUNTS FROM ANOTHER
SAMPLE TO DRAW SOME CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER ONE HAS MORE EDTA
THAN THE OTHER?
A CERTAINLY YOU CAN DO THAT IF IT IS A LARGE
DIFFERENCE. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE 99 FROM A
HUNDRED, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BUT IF YOU ARE TRYING TO
DIFFERENTIATE ONE FROM A THOUSAND YOU CAN DO THAT, YES.
Q HOW ABOUT WITH -- IS THERE A DIFFERENCE OF TEN TIMES,
TEN TIMES THE ION COUNT FROM ONE, TEN TIMES -- TEN TIMES HIGHER
ON THE OTHER?
A WELL, I MEAN IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DAY, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHEMICALS BEING ANALYZED.
THERE IS A LOT OF VARIATION DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ARE
DOING.
Q NOW, YOU TESTED YOUR OWN BLOOD BOTH ON MAY 11TH AND
ON JULY 22TH, DID YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT WAS YOUR ION COUNT FOR YOUR OWN BLOOD IN THE
RED-TOPPED TUBE ON MAY 11TH?
A 54,946.
Q 54,000?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS IT ON JULY 22ND?
A 64,882.
Q NOW, YOU WERE SHOWN THREE CHARTS INDICATING YOUR
RESULTS ON YOUR OWN BLOOD WITH AND WITHOUT EDTA FROM MAY 11TH,
WERE YOU NOT? MISS.
CLARK SHOWED YOU THAT THIS AFTERNOON?
A YES.
Q AND THERE WAS ANOTHER CHART THAT IS A RECORD OF
ANOTHER TEST THAT YOU DID ON YOUR OWN BLOOD AT THE SAME TIME,
ISN'T THERE?
A WELL, MAY 11TH?
Q UH-HUH.
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: MAY I HAVE THIS MARKED NEXT?
THE COURT: 1272.
(DEFT'S 1272 FOR ID = CHART)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT IS 1272,
DEFENSE, AND TELL ME IF THAT IS THE CHART THAT MISS CLARK DIDN'T
SHOW YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q DIDN'T SHOW THE JURY?
A THAT ONE THERE?
Q YES.
A I DON'T KNOW IF SHE DID OR NOT.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT DISPLAYED TO THE JURY
TODAY?
A NO, I DON'T. I DON'T THINK I DID.
MR. BLASIER: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, PLEASE.
Q WHO TELLS THE COMPUTER WHAT SAMPLE IT IS LOOKING AT
OR THE MASS SPEC MACHINE?
A I -- IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I DID.
MR. BLASIER: OKAY.
COULD WE ZOOM IN ON THE TOP LEFT CORNER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN THAT CHART
WAS PRINTED OUT IT WAS PRINTED OUT AS "OPERATOR BLOOD, NO EDTA
ADDED, RED TOP"?
A RIGHT.
Q THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED, HASN'T IT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WROTE THAT IT WAS SOME OTHER SAMPLE IN LATER,
DIDN'T YOU?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT WAS A SAMPLE MIX-UP, WASN'T IT?
A NO.
Q IT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
A IF YOU LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS CHART WHICH IS EDTA 583,
THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS RUN AND THAT THAT IS OPERATOR'S BLOOD, NO
EDTA ADDED.
THE NEXT RUN I DIDN'T CHANGE THE LABEL AND AFTER THE
COMPUTER HAS ACQUIRED THAT DATA IT IS TOO LATE TO CHANGE THE
LABEL, SO I PENCILED IT IN.
Q THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
A I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD CALL IT A MISTAKE. I JUST
WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT A MISTAKE.
Q DID YOU CHECK THE SAMPLE AFTERWARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU HAD LABELED IT PROPERLY WHEN YOU HAD CHANGED THE LABEL?
A WELL, I KNEW THAT IS THE SAMPLE THAT I HAD RUN. I
JUST DIDN'T LABEL IT PROPERLY.
Q YOU KNEW AT THE TIME THAT YOU HADN'T LABELED IT
PROPERLY?
A AFTER THE RUN I DID.
Q AND YOU KNEW AFTER THE RUN BECAUSE YOU JUST LOOKED AT
THE CHART?
A NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL.
Q HOW DID YOU FIGURE IT OUT?
A BECAUSE I KNEW WHICH SAMPLE I RAN. I TOLD YOU, YOU
LABEL THE CHART. I CHANGED THE RUN NUMBER. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE
-- AFTER YOU CHANGE THE RUN NUMBER IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY
CHANGE THE SAMPLE. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THAT ALWAYS.
IN THIS CASE I DIDN'T CHANGE THE SAMPLE.
Q WHAT WAS THE TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT RUN AND THE
ONE RIGHT BEFORE IT?
A UMM, THREE MINUTES.
Q AND YOU CHANGED THE LABELS EACH THREE MINUTES AS THEY
ARE GOING THROUGH THE SYSTEM?
A YES. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LOT TO DO IN THAT THREE
MINUTES, AND I MADE A MISTAKE IN THAT THREE-MINUTE TIME PERIOD.
Q NOW, YESTERDAY YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
DRESS.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU SAID THAT YOU DETECTED EDTA ON THE DRESS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EDTA OR THE EDTA LIKE
SUBSTANCE ON THE DRESS AND THE EVIDENCE WAS THE PRESENCE OF THE
132 ION, CORRECT?
A WELL, I GOT THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM, YES. THE 132
IS PART OF THE FULL DAUGHTER.
Q AND YOU INDICATED I BELIEVE YESTERDAY THAT YOU WOULD
NOT IDENTIFY THE 132 DAUGHTER ION UNLESS ITS SIGNAL WAS THREE
TIMES HIGHER THAN THE NOISE.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A UMM, I SAID THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE TO LOOK FOR,
THREE TIMES THE NOISE, FOR IDENTIFICATION OF A SIGNAL, YES.
MR. BLASIER: MAY I MARK ANOTHER CHART?
THE COURT: YES. DEFENSE 1272.
(DEFT'S 1273 FOR ID = CHART)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: AND WHAT IS IT, MR. BLASIER?
MR. BLASIER: THIS IS A CHART LABELED "CONTROL FOR DRESS
FOR K65 DRESS."
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, 1272.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, LET ME SHOW YOU 1272
AND ASK IS THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM -- THE FULL SPECTRUM FOR
THE CONTROL FOR THE DRESS?
A YES, IT IS.
MR. BLASIER: MAY I SHOW THIS ON THE ELMO, PLEASE?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, DO YOU SEE NUMEROUS
SPIKES -- LET ME COVER UP THE TOP PART TO ILLUSTRATE THIS -- IN
THE BOTTOM AREA GOING ALL THE WAY ALONG THE BOTTOM AXIS?
A YES.
Q IS THAT NOISE?
A YES.
Q NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE 132 ION. IT IS NOT MUCH
HIGHER THAN THE NOISE, IS IT?
A NO, IT IS NOT.
Q SO YOUR STANDARD OF THREE TIMES, YOU DIDN'T APPLY IT
HERE?
A WELL, IF YOU REMEMBER, IN MY REPORT I SAID IT WAS
DETECTED. I DID NOT IDENTIFY EDTA IN THE SAMPLE AND THAT IS WHY
I SAID IT WAS DETECTED AND NOT IDENTIFIED.
I USED THAT BECAUSE I WASN'T COMFORTABLE IDENTIFYING
IT TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CHEMICALS, BUT I THOUGHT I HAD
ENOUGH THERE TO SAY IT WAS DETECTED.
Q YOU TESTIFIED HERE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT IS EDTA,
CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE IT PROBABLY IS.
Q AND THE REASON THAT YOU WILL NOT SAY THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS EDTA IS BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T IDENTIFY THE DAUGHTER
SPECTRUM, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
LET'S COMPARE THIS TO THE FULL SPECTRUM THAT YOU DID
ON THE GATE STAIN.
DO YOU HAVE THAT CHART WITH YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THE CHART THAT CORRESPONDS TO THIS CHART THAT IS ON
THE SCREEN?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE THE ONE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THAT
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SPECTRUM TO PRINT OUT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET'S LOOK AT THE ONE FOR THE SOCK
THAT CORRESPONDS TO THIS CHART FOR THE DRESS.
A I DON'T HAVE THAT ONE ALSO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
SPECTRUM TO PRINT OUT.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T PRINT OUT ANY RESULTS AT ALL LIKE YOU
DID FOR THE DRESS?
A NO, THERE WAS NOTHING TO PRINT OUT.
Q SO -- AND THAT DATA HAS BEEN DESTROYED, HASN'T IT?
A YES.
Q SO WE CANNOT LOOK AT YOUR CHART THAT YOU DID ON THE
BACK GATE AND THE SOCK TO SEE WHETHER THE 132 ION IS REALLY
THERE, CAN WE?
A YES. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE RIC'S THAT I EMPLOYED.
Q WITH A CHART LIKE THIS, THIS IS A FULL SPECTRUM,
ISN'T IT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WE DON'T HAVE A CHART LIKE THIS FOR THE GATE OR THE
SOCK, DO WE, BECAUSE YOU DESTROYED THE DATA AND YOU NEVER PRINTED
OUT THE REPORT?
A I LOOKED AT THE CHROMATOGRAM AND IT DOES NOT SHOW
EDTA AND I DIDN'T PRINT IT OUT. THERE WAS NOTHING TO PRINT OUT.
IT WAS ALL NOISE.
Q BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW US THAT DEMONSTRATES
THAT?
A YES, I DO. I HAVE THE RIC CHROMATOGRAM WHICH SHOWS
THAT THAT THERE IS NO SIGNAL.
Q THAT IS THE ONE THAT SHOWS THAT THE 160 DISAPPEARED
ALSO?
A IF YOU LOOK BACK, I PROBABLY HAVE THE RIC FOR THE
GATE. LET'S SEE IF I HAVE IT.
Q YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT THERE IS EDTA ON THE
BACK GATE AND THE SOCK BECAUSE IT HURTS THE PROSECUTION, DO YOU?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE QUESTION AND ANSWER IS STRICKEN.
THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD IT AS ARGUMENTATIVE.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, AGENT MARTZ, YOU TESTIFIED THAT
YOUR BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE QUANTITY OF BLOOD IN THE EVIDENCE
THAT YOU STARTED WITH WAS LOOKING AT IT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU DID NO ANALYTICAL METHOD WHATSOEVER TO TRY AND
QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT YOU STARTED WITH IN THE
EVIDENCE?
A I BELIEVE I ANSWERED THIS QUESTION YESTERDAY AND I
WILL GIVE THE SAME ANSWER. I LOOKED AT THE STAIN. IT WAS
CONSISTENT WITH BLOOD UNDILUTED. I CUT OUT THE STAIN AND THEN I
EXTRACT IT WITH WATER.
I LOOKED AT THE WATER EXTRACT. THEY HAD SIMILAR
COLORS. AND I WILL DO A PRESUMPTIVE TEST, PHENOLPHTHALEIN, WHICH
GAVE SIMILAR RESPONSES.
Q YOU DIDN'T USE ANY ANALYTICAL TESTS THAT ARE DESIGNED
TO DETERMINE QUANTITY, OTHER THAN LOOKING AT IT, DID YOU?
A I BELIEVE I JUST ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU MADE AN ESTIMATE OF -- NOW, INCIDENTALLY,
HAVE YOU EVER TESTED YOUR ABILITY TO MEASURE QUANTITIES OF BLOOD
BY LOOKING AT IT?
A I THINK I DID IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I MEAN, IF
YOU LOOK AT MY CONTROLS THAT I RAN ON THE SAMPLES, I GOT FAIRLY
SIMILAR RESULTS.
Q HAVE YOU EVER DONE A BLIND STUDY WHERE YOU DON'T KNOW
HOW MUCH BLOOD THERE IS AND YOU ARE TESTED ON YOUR ABILITY TO
RECOGNIZE AND QUANTIFY BLOOD BY JUST LOOKING AT IT?
A NO.
Q IS THERE ANY TEXTBOOK, ANY CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOK THAT
YOU HAVE EVER LOOKED AT OR SEEN THAT RECOMMENDS AS A VALID WAY OF
QUANTIFYING SOMETHING FOR ANALYTICAL PURPOSES TO JUST LOOK AT IT?
A OH, I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY IF THERE IS OR NOT, NO.
Q NOW, ONE OF THE CALCULATIONS THAT YOU MADE HERE HAD
TO DO WITH WHAT IS THE BIGGEST SWATCH WE NEED TO DETECT EDTA
BLOOD.
LET'S ASSUME EDTA BLOOD IS ON IT AND THAT IS THE
BIGGEST SWATCH WE NEED TO DETECT, RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IT WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR IF YOU RAN A SAMPLE OF THE
EVIDENCE STAINS THAT WAS AROUND OR SMALLER THAN WHAT YOU KNEW TO
BE THE MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNT, RIGHT?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE PAPER CHART BACK
THERE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, YOU CAN STEP DOWN IF YOU LIKE.
THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
THE COURT: CAN EVERYBODY SEE?
THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS JUROR NO. 7 I DON'T THINK CAN
SEE THAT BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE.
MR. BLASIER: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: AND 165 MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT BECAUSE OF
THE HEIGHT.
JUROR NO. 165: I CAN SEE IT.
THE COURT: YOU CAN SEE IT?
JUROR NO. 165: YES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: NOW, AGENT MARTZ, YOU DETERMINED THE
MINIMUM SIZE OF A SWATCH THAT YOU NEEDED TO USE TO DETECT BLOOD
WITH EDTA IN IT AS ONE SQUARE MILLIMETER, CORRECT?
A THAT IS BASED ON NEGATIVE ION RESULTS.
Q OKAY.
AND WOULD YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT
CALCULATION?
A I TOOK CUTTINGS OF DIFFERENT SIZES OF SWATCHES AND I
WAS ABLE TO DRAW A PHOTOGRAPH AND CALCULATE THAT THAT WOULD BE
THE MINIMUM SIZE NEEDED.
Q WELL, YOU MADE A -- YOU PUT TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD
ON SOME CLOTH MATERIAL, DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU MEASURED THE DIAMETER -- I'M SORRY, THE
RADIUS -- THE DIAMETER OF THAT, DID YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q COULD YOU DRAW, NOT TO SCALE OBVIOUSLY, A CIRCLE?
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q THAT REPRESENTS THE TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD THAT YOU
--
A OKAY.
Q DID TO DETERMINE YOUR MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNT --
A RIGHT.
Q -- THAT IS TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD?
DID YOU WANT TO WRITE TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD?
A I THINK IT IS PROBABLY FIVE IS WHAT I USED.
Q DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR NOTES?
A I THINK FOR CUTTING THIS OUT I USED FIVE MICROLITERS.
Q WELL, I WANT YOU TO BE ACCURATE. WOULD YOU LOOK AT
YOUR NOTES.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. BLASIER: YOU ARE RIGHT. I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT; FIVE
MICROLITERS.
Q AND YOU FOUND THAT FIVE MICROLITERS OF BLOOD GAVE YOU
A SPOT THAT WAS HOW BIG?
A WELL, I HAD PICTURES OF IT. I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR NOTES?
A IS IT IN THERE?
Q WHAT WAS THE DIAMETER?
A ABOUT FIVE MILLILITERS.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU WANT TO DRAW A LINE THAT REPRESENTS THE
DIAMETER AND WRITE "FIVE MILLILITERS."
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q OKAY.
NOW, BELOW THAT I WANT YOU TO DRAW A LITTLE SQUARE
THAT REPRESENTS A SWATCH. WAY BELOW IT.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.
WELL, WE WANTED A SQUARE ONE. YOU DETERMINED THAT
YOU NEEDED A SQUARE ONE MILLIMETER ON EACH SIDE?
A RIGHT.
Q RIGHT?
A OKAY.
Q NOW -- AND YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED BY OTHER
TESTS THAT YOU NEEDED NOT ONLY A SWATCH ONE MILLIMETER ON THE
SIDE, BUT .5 MICROLITERS OF BLOOD AS THE MINIMUM DETECTABLE
BLOOD, CORRECT?
A BASED ON NEGATIVE ION. ON POSITIVE ION IT WOULD BE
ONE/TENTH OF THAT.
Q NOW, PUT .5 MICROLITERS DOWN BY THE SWATCH.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q SO IS IT ACCURATE THAT YOU CALCULATED THAT YOU NEEDED
A SWATCH ONE HALF THE SIZE -- I'M SORRY -- ONE/TENTH OF THE SIZE
OF YOUR FIVE-MICROLITER CIRCLE TO GET A BIG ENOUGH SWATCH TO HAVE
A MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNT OF EDTA?
A BASED ON NEGATIVE ION.
Q OKAY.
BUT THAT IS THE RATIO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT?
A NO. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT POSITIVE ION THERE. IT
WOULD BE ONE/TENTH.
Q IN TERMS OF FIVE MICROLITERS, .5, THERE IS A TEN-FOLD
DIFFERENCE?
A RIGHT.
Q SO THE AREA OF YOUR CIRCLE SHOULD BE TEN TIMES BIGGER
THAN YOUR SWATCH, RIGHT?
A RIGHT.
Q CAN YOU CALCULATE THE AREA OF A CIRCLE WITH A
FIVE-MILLIMETER DIAMETER?
A I MEAN I COULD. I DON'T -- MATH -- I DON'T -- I
DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW WHAT IT IS.
Q WELL, WHAT IS THE FORMULA FOR THE AREA OF A CIRCLE?
A PI R SQUARED.
Q WHAT IS PI?
A BOY, YOU ARE REALLY TESTING ME. 2.12, 2.17.
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT 3.12.14.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: ISN'T PI KIND OF ESSENTIAL TO BEING
A SCIENTIST KNOWING WHAT IT IS?
A I HAVEN'T USED PI SINCE I GUESS I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.
Q LET'S TRY 3.12.
A IS THAT WHAT IT IS? THERE IS AN EASIER WAY TO DO --
Q LET'S TRY 3.14.
AND WHAT IS THE RADIUS?
A IT WOULD BE HALF THE DIAMETER, 2.5.
Q 2.5 SQUARED, RIGHT?
A RIGHT.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE BORROW A CALCULATOR?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: CAN YOU USE CALCULATOR?
A YES, I THINK.
Q TELL ME WHAT PI TIMES 2.5 SQUARED IS?
A 19.
Q DO YOU WANT TO WRITE DOWN 19?
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q SQUARE MILLIMETERS, RIGHT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THE AREA. WHAT IS ONE/TENTH OF THAT?
A 1.9.
Q YOU MISCALCULATED BY A FACTOR OF TWO, THE SIZE, THE
MINIMUM SIZE OF A SWATCH YOU NEEDED TO DETECT EDTA, DIDN'T YOU?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT I DID OR NOT. I CALCULATED A
LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. I DIDN'T USE THIS.
Q WELL, DOES THE AREA CHANGE BY THE DIFFERENT METHOD OF
CALCULATION?
A WELL, THIS IS ALL ESTIMATIONS BASED ON MY EYEBALL. I
DIDN'T USE ANY SCIENTIFIC MATH TO DETERMINE IT. WHAT I DID WAS I
TOOK THE CIRCLE AND I DIVIDED IT IN HALF AND THEN I DIVIDED IT IN
HALF AGAIN AND I JUST CUT OUT A PIECE AND THAT IS HOW I DID IT.
Q SO WHEN YOU SAY IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU DETERMINED
THAT YOU NEEDED A SQUARE ONE MILLIMETER --
A I SAID APPROXIMATELY. THIS IS ALL APPROXIMATE.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU
SET FORTH IN YOUR REPORT THAT ONE/TENTH OF A CIRCLE OF FIVE
MICROLITERS OF BLOOD IS A SWATCH TWO SQUARE MILLIMETERS, NOT ONE?
A THAT IS APPROXIMATELY RIGHT.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THOUGH, IN THE POSITIVE ION
MODE IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
ONE/TENTH THAT.
Q WERE YOU TRYING TO BE CAREFUL IN THE QUANTIFICATIONS
THAT YOU USED?
A I TOLD YOU WHAT I DID, AND I TOOK SMALL PORTIONS OF
IT AND USED THAT TO CALCULATE HOW MUCH MY MINIMUM DETECTABLE
LIMIT WAS.
Q YOU CAN RETAKE THE STAND.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q DID YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU DID THIS IN A WAY THAT
WASN'T VERY SCIENTIFIC?
A WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF -- WHAT THE DEFINITION OF
"SCIENTIFIC" IS, BUT I TOOK THE CIRCLE AND DIVIDED IT INTO PIECES
AND CUT A PIECE OUT.
Q NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC, IS IT?
A WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE GOT TO GO BACK TO
THE ORIGINAL FOCUS, CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRESERVED AND
NON-PRESERVED BLOOD?
WE ARE TALKING A THOUSAND-FOLD DIFFERENCE. ANY
IMPRECISION THAT I MAY HAVE HAD HERE WILL NOT AFFECT MY RESULTS.
MR. BLASIER: COULD WE HAVE CHART B.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. BLASIER: I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: 1271-B.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT CHART, AGENT MARTZ?
A YES.
Q DOES THAT LOOK LIKE A THOUSAND-FOLD DIFFERENCE?
THOSE ARE YOUR MEASUREMENTS, AREN'T THEY?
A WELL, YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER --
MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ -- MOVE TO STRIKE.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE IS AN EXPERT.
THE COURT: HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. ASK HIM THE
QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A
THOUSAND-FOLD DIFFERENCE TO YOU FROM YOUR OWN DATA?
A IN THAT PARTICULAR THING?
Q YEAH.
A NO, NO.
Q NOW, AGENT MARTZ, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO DETERMINE QUANTITIES OF BLOOD BY
LOOKING AT THEM.
OKAY?
A OKAY.
Q YOU PROVIDED ME WITH SOME PICTURES OF DIFFERENT SPOTS
OF BLOOD, DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I DID.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: THERE WILL BE AN OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SIDE BAR WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM WITH THIS --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
BEFORE ME THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT APPEAR TO
HAVE BLOOD DROPS ON THEM.
MR. BLASIER: I WILL TELL YOU WHAT THESE ARE. THESE ARE
PHOTOGRAPHS HE PROVIDED. THAT IS TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD,
(INDICATING). THAT IS FIVE, (INDICATING). YOU CAN'T TELL BY THE
APPEARANCE.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE POINT OF -- THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE NOT TAKEN FOR
THAT PURPOSE AT ALL. AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW PHOTOGRAPHS
THAT WERE TAKEN FOR ONE PURPOSE TO TRY AND IMPACT ON A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT AREA.
WHAT AGENT MARTZ WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WAS SHOW
DILUTION FACTORS AND WHAT HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS SHOW THAT IN
ORDER TO GET THE EDTA LEVELS THAT WERE DEMONSTRATED ON THE
EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO -- IF IT WAS INDEED PRESERVED BLOOD
INITIALLY, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS DILUTE IT TO THE POINT
WHERE YOU COULD NO LONGER SEE BLOOD AT ALL. THAT WAS THE POINT.
AND SO THESE BLOOD DROPS WERE NEVER MEASURED.
THE COURT: SO YOU ARE ASKING HOW MUCH BLOOD IS IN HERE?
MR. BLASIER: HE TOLD ME; TEN MICROLITERS.
MS. CLARK: THERE IS NO SCALE.
MR. BLASIER: THE SCALE IS THE SAME. HE TOLD ME THAT, TOO.
THIS IS THE SAME AS THIS, (INDICATING). SAME SCALE.
THE COURT: HE PROVIDED YOU WITH THIS?
MR. BLASIER: YES, AND THIS, (INDICATING).
THE COURT: AND THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE WHAT?
MR. BLASIER: WHETHER YOU CAN ACCURATELY DETERMINE
QUANTITIES BY LOOKING AT SPOTS.
MS. CLARK: THE UNFAIRNESS OF IT IS THE DIFFERENT SUBSTRATE
OBVIOUSLY. HERE WE HAVE IT ON PAPER, HERE WE HAVE IT ON WHATEVER
THAT IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
MR. BLASIER: HE DIDN'T USE THE SAME SUBSTRATE BETWEEN THE
EVIDENCE AND HIS CONTROLS EITHER.
MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS NOT -- YEAH, BUT THAT WAS -- HE
DID. HE USED THE SAME SUBSTRATE FOR THE GATE, HE USED THE COTTON
SWATCH, AND FOR THE SOCK HE USED THE SOCK.
MR. BLASIER: FOR THE CONTROLS HE USED HIS OWN MATERIAL.
MS. CLARK: THAT IS DIFFERENT.
THE COURT: HOLD ON.
THE ISSUE HERE, THOUGH, IS CAN YOU SHOW SOMEBODY
PHOTOGRAPHS AND ASK THEM TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH BLOOD IS THERE FROM
BLOOD SPOTS?
MR. BLASIER: NO. THE ISSUE IS -- THIS IS HIS OWN
PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWING -- PROVING THAT YOU CANNOT LOOK AT A SPOT AND
TELL HOW MUCH BLOOD IS THERE.
THIS IS SMALLER AND HAS TWICE AS MUCH BLOOD. HE SAID
THAT THAT IS HIS ANALYTICAL METHOD.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES AND DIFFERENT
PURPOSES HERE. IT IS NOT THE SAME CONDITION.
WE ARE ASKING HIM TO ESTIMATE UNDER DIFFERENT
CONDITIONS WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ESTIMATING
SAMPLE SIZE.
MR. BLASIER: ASK HIM TO ESTIMATE?
MS. CLARK: APPLES AND ORANGES.
MR. BLASIER: HE TOLD ME.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, DID YOU DO ANY TESTING
TO SEE WHAT SIZE BLOOD DROP YOU WOULD GET WITH VARIOUS QUANTITIES
OF BLOOD?
A UMM, I PUT A COUPLE DIFFERENT SIZE DROPS ON PAPER TO
SEE HOW BIG THEY WERE, YES.
Q ONE OF YOUR METHODS THAT YOU USED TO ESTIMATE HOW
MUCH BLOOD YOU HAD FROM THE EVIDENCE WAS TO LOOK AT THOSE BLOOD
DROPS, CORRECT?
A NO. I USED THAT -- BASICALLY PUT THEM ON PAPER SO I
WOULD KNOW HOW MUCH SAMPLE TO TAKE AND I MEASURED A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OUT SO I KNEW HOW LARGE THE AREA WAS.
Q DOES THE SAME AMOUNT OF BLOOD PUT ON DIFFERENT
SUBSTRATES LOOK DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE QUANTITY, THE SIZE OF
THE DROPS?
A YES.
Q HOW MUCH DIFFERENT?
A OH, IT WOULD DEPEND. MAYBE 20, 30 PERCENT. I DON'T
KNOW SPECIFICALLY. I CERTAINLY DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATIONS.
Q YOU DIDN'T DO ANY TESTING AT ALL OF THAT, DID YOU?
A NO.
Q DID YOU PREPARE SOME SAMPLE WITH BLOOD DROPS TO
COMPARE -- YOU INDICATED YOU DID ONE SET OF BLOOD DROPS ON
DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES?
A I BELIEVE I DID SOMETHING ON FILTER PAPER AND ONE ON
A CLOTH. I THINK IT WAS A TOWEL.
Q ON A -- OKAY.
AND DID YOU DO A SECOND SAMPLE OF BLOOD DROPS ON THE
SAME KIND OF MATERIAL AS THE TOWEL?
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
Q YOUR DILUTION EXPERIMENT, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: THAT YOU TALKED TO ME ABOUT?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK I DID THAT DILUTION EXPERIMENT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WHAT WAS THE MATERIAL YOU USED FOR
THAT DILUTION EXPERIMENT?
A I DIDN'T DO THAT EXPERIMENT.
Q SO THE SIZE OF A BLOOD DROP -- OR YOUR TESTIMONY IS
IT CAN ONLY VARY BY 20 PERCENT?
A I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T
MEASURE. I GAVE YOU AN APPROXIMATION. I --
Q SO YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE SIZE OF A BLOOD DROP
WILL CHANGE GIVEN DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES?
A NO, AND THAT IS WHY, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE WHEN I DID THE SOCK I MADE SURE I USED THE SOCK AS A CONTROL
AND THE GATE WAS SWABBED WITH A COTTON SWAB OR COTTON SWATCH, SO
I USED THE COTTON SWATCH. I USED SIMILAR MATERIAL.
Q HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU USED THE SAME KIND OF SWATCH?
YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THEM, DID YOU?
A WELL, THEY WERE THE TYPE THAT WERE USED FOR SEROLOGY
AND DNA AND I GOT MINE FROM THE DNA UNIT.
Q IN YOUR OPINION CAN THE SIZE OF A BLOOD DROP WITH A
GIVEN QUANTITY OF BLOOD VARY BY EIGHT TIMES, DEPENDING ON THE
SUBSTRATE?
A I HAVE NEVER OBSERVED THAT. THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: PROCEED. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T DO THAT
DILUTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DID YOU EXAMINE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
YOU PROVIDED TO ME OF BLOOD SPOTS?
A I LOOKED AT THEM.
Q DID YOU EXAMINE THE SIZES OF BLOOD SPOTS THAT YOU HAD
IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPH TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE
DIFFERENCE MIGHT BE WITH DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES WITH THE SAME
AMOUNT OF BLOOD?
A WE ARE BACK TO THE ONES THAT I PREPARED?
Q YEAH. DID YOU EVER COMPARE THOSE TO THE DILUTION
ONES THAT WERE PREPARED FOR YOU?
A NO.
MR. BLASIER: I WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IF HE HAS NEVER SEEN
THEM HOW CAN HE REFRESH HIS MEMORY?
THE COURT: HE SAID HE PROVIDED THEM. I ASSUME HE HAS SEEN
THEM.
MS. CLARK: BUT HE HAS NEVER COMPARED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IT IS FOR THE USE -- PURPOSE OF REFRESHING
RECOLLECTION.
IT IS ALSO A SPEAKING OBJECTION. HAVE A SEAT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
REVIEW THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.
A I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CORRECTION. THIS IS SOMETHING
I DID PREPARE HERE. I THOUGHT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE OTHER
ONE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU PREPARED BOTH THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A YES, I DID.
Q YOU PREPARED THE STAINS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
A YES.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I HAVE THEM MARKED?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. BLASIER: TWO PHOTOGRAPHS.
THE COURT: 1274 AND 5.
MR. BLASIER: 1274 AND 5?
THE COURT: YES.
(DEFT'S 1274 & 1275 FOR ID = PHOTOS)
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, WHEN YOU PREPARED THESE
DID YOU MEASURE OUT THE QUANTITIES OF BLOOD THAT YOU PUT ON THEM?
A UMM, CAN I SEE THOSE AGAIN?
Q SURE.
A I KNOW THAT I DID IN THIS ONE AND I
CAN'T --
THE COURT: WHICH ONE IS THAT? WHAT IS THE NUMBER ON THAT?
THE WITNESS: 1274.
THOSE ARE ALL LABELED FIVE MICROLITERS, SO I KNOW
THAT THAT IS WHAT I DID.
IN THIS OTHER ONE, 1275, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I DID.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: DO YOU REMEMBER ME SHOWING YOU THAT
PICTURE ABOUT A HOUR AND A HALF AGO AND ASKING YOU HOW MUCH BLOOD
YOU USED FOR THAT SECOND PICTURE?
A YES.
Q YOU TOLD ME TEN MICROLITERS, DIDN'T YOU?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THAT IS WHAT I SAID. IT -- I
PROBABLY SAID FIVE -- I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID TEN, FIVE. I DON'T
KNOW WHAT IT IS.
Q DID YOU TELL ME TEN?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER. I CAN'T REMEMBER.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THESE --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, SAME AS PREVIOUSLY.
THE COURT: 1274 YOU CAN SHOW. 1275 THE OBJECTION IS
SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: LET ME ASK YOU A FOUNDATIONAL
QUESTION.
1275, THE SECOND PICTURE, WAS THAT THE SAME SUBSTRATE
AS THE FIRST?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q WHEN YOU DID THE EXPERIMENT, THIS DILUTION
EXPERIMENT, DID YOU WRITE DOWN ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR
EXPERIMENT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q IS THAT BECAUSE YOU COULD REMEMBER THEM?
A I FELT FOR THE PURPOSES THAT I DID THERE WAS NO
REASON TO DO IT. THE PICTURES ARE QUITE EVIDENT. I DID IT FOR
DRAMATIC EFFECT JUST SO YOU COULD SEE THE PICTURES.
Q WHAT KIND OF DRAMATIC EFFECT?
A WELL, JUST TO SHOW THAT BLOOD, WHEN IT IS DILUTED,
THE COLOR CHANGES.
Q AND YOU DIDN'T RECORD THE QUANTITIES OF BLOOD THAT
YOU PUT ON THESE?
A NO. I -- THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO
DIFFERENCE. IT IS THE DILUTION FACTOR THAT IS IMPORTANT.
Q BUT YOU CAN'T REMEMBER NOW WHAT YOU PUT ON IT?
A NO.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. BLASIER: LET ME SHOW 1274.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: AGENT MARTZ, LOOKING AT 1274, THOSE
ARE FIVE-MICROLITER BLOOD DROPS THAT YOU PUT ON SOME SORT OF
SUBSTRATE, TWO DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES, CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT WAS THE SUBSTRATE ON THE TOP ONES?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS A TOWEL.
Q AND THIS WAS WHAT YOU USED TO DETERMINE WHAT A
FIVE-MICROLITER BLOOD DROP -- OR FIVE MICROLITERS OF BLOOD WOULD
LOOK LIKE?
A YES.
Q IS THAT TOWEL ANYTHING SIMILAR AT ALL TO SWATCHES
THAT YOU GOT WITH EVIDENCE?
A IN WHAT RESPECT?
Q ANY RESPECT?
A WELL, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO THE TEST.
Q SO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FIVE MICROLITERS OF BLOOD
WOULD LOOK LIKE ON A SWATCH FROM LAPD, DO YOU?
A NO.
Q AND YOU ARE USING QUANTITIES OF BLOOD IN THIS
EXPERIMENT FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT WERE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE
MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNTS THAT YOU HAD DETERMINED FOR YOUR
NEGATIVE ION TEST, CORRECT?
A FOR THE NEGATIVE ION? I WAS ABOVE THE MINIMUM
DETECTABLE AMOUNT.
Q YOU WERE CLOSE, WEREN'T YOU?
A OH, I DON'T -- I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS THAT CLOSE.
Q STAIN Q207 FROM THE SOCK, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE?
A YEAH.
Q THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE PART OF THE STAIN
RATHER THAN THE EDGE?
A THE 207, I DON'T KNOW. AS I TOLD YOU, I DON'T KNOW
WHERE IT CAME FROM. YOU SHOWED ME A PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE
IT CAME FROM.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK?
A I'VE ASKED MANY TIMES AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE GOTTEN
A SATISFACTORY ANSWER.
Q IS THERE MORE BLOOD ON Q207 THAN Q206?
A ARE YOU TALKING THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS ON 206
VERSUS 207?
Q YEAH.
A OR WHERE THE CUT --
Q NOW, YOUR CUTTING, YOUR Q206 CUTTING?
A I TRIED TO TAKE THE SAME AMOUNTS OF CUTTINGS FROM
BOTH. I TRIED TO GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF BLOOD.
Q YOU DIDN'T DO A CUTTING ON Q207, DID YOU?
A YES.
Q Q207?
A YEAH, THE FIRST DAY. THE CHARTS ARE LABELED 206/207.
Q DID YOU HAVE A LOT OF Q207 LEFT OVER?
A IT IS ALL RELEVANT -- RELATIVE. I DIDN'T USE AS MUCH
AS I WAS PRESENTED. THERE IS MORE PRESENT NOW -- THERE IS LESS
PRESENT NOW THAN THERE WAS WHEN I STARTED.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T USE ALL OF Q207 TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH
BLOOD AS POSSIBLE SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE HIGHER AMOUNTS OF BLOOD
TO LOOK FOR EDTA, DID YOU?
A AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IN ALL THE
CASES --
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REASK THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU DID NOT USE ALL OF Q207 WHICH
HAD MUCH MORE BLOOD THAN THE CUTTING YOU TOOK, CORRECT?
A I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
Q HOW MUCH DID YOU CUT OUT OF Q207?
A IN ALL CASES I TOOK LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT
THAT WAS NEEDED AND I COMBINED 206 AND 207.
Q AND YOU HAD DETERMINED THE MINIMUM AMOUNT YOU NEEDED
>FROM YOUR CALCULATIONS OF SIZES OF BLOOD DROPS AND WHAT SIZE
SQUARE SWATCH YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE MINIMUM AMOUNTS OF BLOOD,
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SUSPECT, WHEN YOU SAW THE 160 ION IN THE BACK
GATE AND THE SOCK, THAT THERE MIGHT BE EDTA THERE?
A YEAH, YES.
Q YOU COULD HAVE USED MORE BLOOD THAN YOU USED IN THAT
EXPERIMENT TO TRY AND FIND THE 132 DAUGHTER ION, COULDN'T YOU?
A UMM, I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT WAS RELEVANT.
Q YOU COULD HAVE USED MORE BLOOD, COULDN'T YOU, IF YOU
WANTED TO USE A LARGER QUANTITY OF BLOOD TO TRY AND FIND WHETHER
THERE WAS A TRUE EDTA SPECTRUM THERE, COULDN'T YOU?
A TO ME IT WAS IRRELEVANT AND I DIDN'T WANT TO CONSUME
ALL THE EVIDENCE IN CASE THE DEFENSE WANTED TO USE IT.
Q YOU ASKED -- YOU SAID YOU CALLED THE PROSECUTION TO
SEE IF YOU COULD GET SOME MORE, DIDN'T YOU?
A RIGHT.
Q THAT WAS FOR THEIR TEST, RIGHT?
A YES, AND I WANTED TO SAVE SOME FOR THE DEFENSE.
Q DID THEY EVER TELL YOU THAT YOU HAD A LIMITATION ON
WHAT YOU COULD USE?
A NO, BUT I GENERALLY WILL NEVER CONSUME ALL THE
EVIDENCE.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK FOR SOME MORE SO THAT YOU COULD RUN
LARGER QUANTITIES OF BLOOD TO REALLY DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS
EDTA THERE OR NOT?
A I DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS RELEVANT.
Q IS THE ANSWER TO THAT NO, YOU DIDN'T?
A I DIDN'T.
WHAT IS THE QUESTION?
Q YOU DIDN'T MAKE ANY EFFORT TO TRY AND RUN MORE BLOOD
THAN YOU HAD RUN IN YOUR FIRST SET OF TESTS TO TRY AND ACTUALLY
IDENTIFY EDTA IN THE BACK GATE AND THE SOCK, DID YOU?
A WELL --
MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WELL, I DID, AND THAT IS WHY I WENT TO THE
POSITIVE ION MODE THE NEXT DAY, BECAUSE I FELT THAT EDTA MAY BE
PRESENT IN BLOOD.
MR. BLASIER: MOVE TO STRIKE, NONRESPONSIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: QUANTITY, AGENT MARTZ.
DID YOU EVER TRY TO TEST MORE BLOOD THAT YOU HAD
AVAILABLE TO YOU WHEN YOU SUSPECT THERE WAS EDTA ON THE GATE AND
THE SOCK?
A I FELT THERE WAS A BETTER WAY AND THAT WAS TO DO THE
POSITIVE ION AND THAT IS THE WAY I LOOKED FOR THE EDTA. IT WAS
TEN TIMES MORE SENSITIVE.
Q DID YOU EVER CONSIDER USING MORE BLOOD?
A NO.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I ALWAYS TRY TO SAVE EVIDENCE IN CASE THE
DEFENSE WANTS TO EXAMINE IT.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YOU HAD THE SOCK AT ONE POINT,
DIDN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q HOW LARGE A CUTTING DID YOU TAKE COMPARED TO WHAT WAS
LEFT ON THE SOCK?
A I PROBABLY TOOK NO MORE THAN ONE/TENTH WOULD BE JUST
AN ESTIMATE.
Q YOU HAD PLENTY OF MORE SAMPLE ON THE SOCK, DIDN'T
YOU?
A YEAH.
Q YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED WITH USING UP WHAT YOU HAD
AVAILABLE ON THE SOCK, WERE YOU?
A I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ALL THEIR TESTING NEEDED TO BE
DONE. IF DNA TESTING NEEDED TO BE DONE, THERE WOULD BE MORE
BLOOD NEEDED. IF IT WAS JUST FOR EDTA -- THERE IS MORE THINGS TO
BE DONE THAN EDTA.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK, "CAN I TAKE ANOTHER CUTTING SINCE
WE ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS"?
A NO, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T CONCERNED WITH THAT BECAUSE
MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMIT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT WAS
PRESERVED OR NON-PRESERVED BLOOD. IN PRESERVED BLOOD THERE WAS
SO MUCH PRESENT IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
Q IF YOU TEST AROUND MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNTS YOU ARE
GOING TO FIND LESS, AREN'T YOU, IF IT IS THERE? A LOT LESS,
AREN'T YOU?
A I DON'T KNOW ABOUT A LOT LESS. EVERY INSTRUMENT HAS
A MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMIT AND YOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T
HAVE IT AND THE SOCK AND THE GATE DIDN'T HAVE IT.
Q DID YOU EVER CONSIDER TRYING TO TEST YOUR SUSPICION
THAT YOU FOUNDED EDTA BY TESTING A LARGER QUANTITY OF BLOOD?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IN THIS CASE?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: YES.
A NO.
MR. BLASIER: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. MARTZ, WHY WOULD IT NOT BE RELEVANT TO USE MORE
BLOOD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD EDTA FROM PRESERVED
BLOOD?
A AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT WAS -- IT WAS ACTUALLY A
VERY EASY ANALYSIS. IT MAY SEEM COMPLICATED, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY
VERY EASY.
THE STAINS WERE TAKEN FROM APPROXIMATELY THE SAME
AMOUNT. I ALWAYS MADE SURE THAT I TOOK MORE STAIN FROM THE
QUESTIONED SAMPLE THAN I DID THE KNOWN, AND AS YOU SAW FROM MY
CHARTS, IT IS VERY EASY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN BLOOD THAT IS
PRESERVED WITH EDTA AND BLOOD THAT IS NOT PRESERVED.
Q AND BY TAKING MORE STAIN FROM THE EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD
ENCOURAGE HIGHER READINGS FROM THE EVIDENCE THAN YOU WOULD
ORDINARILY IF YOU JUST TOOK EVEN AMOUNTS FROM THE EVIDENCE AND
THE REFERENCE SAMPLE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IN THAT WAY YOU OVERCOMPENSATE FOR ANY VARIATION
IN SIZE BY MAKING SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE READING IS GOING TO BE
OVER-REPRESENTED?
A THAT WAS MY THEORY AND THAT IS WHY I DID THAT, YES.
Q SO IF ANYTHING, THE READINGS THAT YOU GOT IN THE
EVIDENCE GRAPHS AND CHART RESULTS THAT YOU HAVE OVERREPRESENT THE
AMOUNT OF EDTA?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT DETECTION LIMITS, SIR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MS. CLARK: WE LOST OUR OPERATOR, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, TRY IT THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY.
MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THAT? I FORGOT.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I USE THE PHONE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY. PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
I WILL GO TO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE MOMENT.
Q SIR, YOU TALKED ABOUT DETECTION LIMIT. LET ME ASK YOU
THIS:
WHATEVER SIZE OF BLOODSTAIN YOU TAKE, BE IT FIVE
MICROLITERS, TEN MICROLITERS, WHATEVER, ASSUME IT IS FIVE
MICROLITERS, THAT IS VERY SMALL ISN'T IT?
A RIGHT.
Q WHEN YOU TEST FIVE MICROLITERS OF BLOOD, IF IT IS
FIVE MICROLITERS OF BLOOD THAT COMES FROM A TUBE CONTAINING
EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD, WILL YOU DETECT EDTA?
A YES. IT IS VEER EASY TO DETECT.
IN A STAIN WITH A POSITIVE ION MODE IT WOULD EVEN BE
ONE/TENTH THE SIZE OF A ONE-MILLIMETER SQUARE, SO IT WOULD BE
EXTREMELY SMALL SIZE.
Q AND IF YOU RUN THAT SAME SAMPLE SIZE, AS SMALL AS IT
CAN BE AND IT IS UNPRESERVED BLOOD, WILL YOU DETECT EDTA?
A IN UNPRESERVED BLOOD?
Q RIGHT.
A I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY EDTA FROM
BLOODSTAINS THAT SIZE.
Q THEN WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE DETECTABLE
LIMIT? IF YOUR SIGNAL IS SO WEAK, SIR, THAT IT IS BELOW THE
DETECTABLE LIMIT IN YOUR BLOODSTAIN, DOES THAT TELL YOU THAT EDTA
HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IN THAT RESPECT, SIR, IS IT IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT
YOU USE MORE BLOOD OR LESS BLOOD?
A AS LONG AS I USE THE SAME SIZE STAINS, IT IS
IRRELEVANT.
Q BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU USE VERY LITTLE BLOOD, EDTA WILL
PRODUCE A STRONG SIGNAL IF IT IS PRESENT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND BY THAT I MEAN EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD?
A YES.
Q NOW, MR. BLASIER ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER
CALLED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO ADVISE THEM OF WHAT YOU TELL A
PROSECUTOR ABOUT WHEN YOU WORK ON CASES FOR PROSECUTORIAL
AGENCIES.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q HAVE YOU EVER REFUSED TO SPEAK TO A DEFENSE ATTORNEY
WHO HAD QUESTIONS OF YOU?
A NO, NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER REFUSED TO SPEAK TO MR. BLASIER WHEN HE
HAD QUESTIONS OF YOU, SIR?
A NO.
Q AND HAS HE HAD QUESTIONS OF YOU, SIR, THROUGHOUT
THESE PROCEEDINGS?
A YES, HE HAS.
Q AND HAVE YOU ANSWERED THEM?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q IN FACT, HAVE YOU APPROACHED HIM TO ASK HIM IF HE HAD
ANY QUESTIONS?
A YES.
Q AND DID HE HAVE SOME?
A ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, YES.
Q DID YOU ANSWER THEM?
A YES.
Q YOU INDICATED, SIR, THAT YOU WERE CONFUSED BY THE
FACT THAT HE WANTED TO CALL YOU AS A WITNESS?
A YES.
Q WHY IS THAT?
A BECAUSE MY --
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MY RESULTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT EDTA IS NOT
PRESENT IN THE BLOODSTAINS IN QUESTION.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, SIR, AS TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
TESTING NOW, WITH THAT IN MIND, I MEAN THE EVIDENCE OF THE BLOOD
ON THE GATE, THE BLOOD ON THE SOCK, DID YOU WRITE REPORTS
CONTAINING YOUR CONCLUSIONS AND YOUR RESULTS AND THE TESTING
PROCEDURES YOU FOLLOWED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PROSECUTION AND THE
DEFENSE?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE THOSE REPORTS?
A IT WAS PROBABLY THE END OF FEBRUARY, THE BEGINNING OF
MARCH. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE.
Q OKAY.
AND THOSE REPORTS INDICATED YOUR CONCLUSION THAT NO
EDTA FROM PRESERVED BLOOD WAS PRESENT IN THE EVIDENCE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND HAVING PROVIDED THEM BY THE END OF MARCH, SIR, IF
YOU WANTED TO PROVE THAT EDTA BLOOD -- PRESERVED BLOOD WAS
PRESENT ON THE EVIDENCE STAINS, WHAT TESTS WOULD YOU CONDUCT?
A WELL, I WOULD CONDUCT THE TESTS THAT I PERFORMED
HERE.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS THE DEFENSE CONDUCTED SUCH
TESTS?
A I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEM CONDUCTING THOSE TESTS,
NO.
Q IF YOU WANTED TO PROVE THAT EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD,
WHEN YOU HAVE EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD THAT THE EDTA WILL BREAK DOWN
OR DEGRADE WHEN SUBJECTED TO SUNLIGHT, HIGH INTENSITY LIGHT,
RUST, FERTILIZER OR METAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, WOULD YOU
CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS TO PROVE THAT
HYPOTHESIS?
A YES.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS THAT EVER BEEN DONE BY ANY
DEFENSE EXPERT?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q IN YOUR OPINION, SIR, BETWEEN THE BEGINNING OF MARCH,
WHEN YOU TURNED OVER YOUR RESULTS AND NOW, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN
AMPLE TIME TO CONDUCT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?
A I BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE, YES.
Q WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN AMPLE TIME, SIR, TO CONDUCT ANY
TESTS ON THE EVIDENCE?
MR. BLASIER: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: YES. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. BLASIER.
MR. BLASIER: THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED ARE AN
ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE SOME
KIND OF BURDEN OF DOING TESTING, OF GOING FORWARD WITH TESTING,
WHEN WE DON'T.
AND THESE ARE IN THE FORM OF ARGUMENT AND COMMENTS ON
OUR -- WHETHER WE ARE DOING TESTS OR NOT, AND THEY ARE IMPROPER.
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE PROSECUTION TO REPHRASE
REGARDING OPPORTUNITY AND TIME TO DO TESTING. THAT IS WHAT YOU
CAN ASK, WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO THIS, THERE WAS
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE COURT: AND TIME, NOT THAT THE DEFENSE HAD ANY
OBLIGATION TO DO IT, SO STAY AWAY FROM THE DEFENSE. HAVING THE
OPPORTUNITY, JUST ANY SCIENTIST INTERESTED IN THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY SOMETHING?
THE COURT: NEUTRAL QUESTION.
MR. COCHRAN: IN VIEW OF THAT, SHOULDN'T WE STRIKE WHAT
THEY HAVE ALREADY ASKED? THEY ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ALONG
THIS LINE TO STRAIGHTEN THE RECORD OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN
OBLIGATION, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: I --
MR. COCHRAN: FINISH, PLEASE?
SHOULDN'T WE STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT,
YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON WHO GETS TO
ARGUE THESE THINGS, MR. COCHRAN.
MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS
PROFFERED THIS EVIDENCE, NOT THE PEOPLE, AND WE DID NOT PROFFER
THIS WITNESS. HE IS SUBPOENAED BY THE DEFENSE AND WAS DR.
RIEDERS.
ALL PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED NOW WITH RESPECT TO ANY
TESTING THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BY HAVING CALLED A WITNESS,
AND ACTUALLY TWO WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE, SO I THINK IT IS FAIR
COMMENT.
THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT, IT IS FAIR COMMENT IN ARGUMENT
THAT THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, THEY HAD THE RESOURCES,
THEY HAD THE PEOPLE TO DO IT; THEY DIDN'T DO IT. THAT IS
ARGUMENT.
AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION
IN A NEUTRAL FASHION THAT ANY SCIENTIST WITH THE APPROPRIATE
EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE TIME YOU COMPLETED YOUR TEST, HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THESE OTHER TESTS.
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.
THE COURT: IN TIME, EQUIPMENT, SKILL, WHATEVER, THEY COULD
HAVE DONE THIS, ANYBODY COULD HAVE DONE THIS, CORRECT?
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: IN A NEUTRAL FASHION. THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE HERE, I WOULD LIKE
TO BE HEARD ON THIS.
AGENT MARTZ TOLD ME RIGHT AFTER LUNCH THERE IS TEN
MICROLITERS IN EACH ONE OF THESE DROPS. I THINK HE IS BECOMING
DECEPTIVE BY DENYING THAT, AND I WANT TO STATE AS AN OFFICER OF
THE COURT THAT IS WHAT HE TOLD ME.
ORDINARILY THE PROPER WAY TO IMPEACH HIM WOULD BE TO
CALL MYSELF AS A WITNESS TO SAY THAT THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.
OBVIOUSLY THAT PRESENTS ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO
DEAL WITH THAT, BUT
I --
THE COURT: LET'S NOT TAKE IT UP NOW, BECAUSE I HAVE A
FEELING WE ARE NOT GOING TO FINISH WITH MARTZ THIS MORNING --
THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE WE ARE -- ALTHOUGH YOU ARE ABOUT TO FINISH
IN ABOUT TWO OR THREE MINUTES --
MS. CLARK: YEAH, EXACTLY. I'M ALMOST DONE.
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT YOU?
MR. BLASIER: I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE.
THE COURT: WELL, WE MAY SLOP OVER.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE TRY AND FINISH?
THE COURT: WE DO HAVE TO END AT 5:00 TODAY.
MR. BLASIER: IF WE CAN.
MS. CLARK: I THINK WE CAN.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE THING IS, BOB WANTS TO GO INTO
THIS.
MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. OFF THE RECORD.
MS. CLARK: I WASN'T PRESENT FOR THE CONVERSATION, BUT THE
WITNESS DOESN'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH HE ACTUALLY USED AND BLASIER
ASKED OFF-THE-CUFF INFORMALLY IN COURT --
THE COURT: WHAT WE WILL DO --
MS. CLARK: HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IMPORTANT.
THE COURT: WHAT WE WILL DO, THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT
THE FACT THAT WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO FINISH WITH THIS GUY
TODAY IS WHEN WE TAKE THE RECESS, LET THE JURORS GO, BECAUSE
THEIR FAMILY VISITATION IS THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE
TO QUIT AT 5:00, WE CAN CHAT WITH AGENT MARTZ, SO LET'S NOT TAKE
UP THE TIME AND TALK ABOUT IT NOW.
ALL RIGHT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SIR, HAD A SCIENTIST WITH THE
EQUIPMENT OF THE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPH TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETER,
IF SUCH A PERSON HAD THAT EQUIPMENT, COULD THEY, BETWEEN THE
BEGINNING OF MARCH WHEN YOU PROVIDED YOUR RESULTS TO THE DEFENSE
AND NOW, HAVE CONDUCTED TESTS ON THE SOCKS AND ON THE GATE TO
DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD?
A YES, THEY COULD.
Q AND IN THAT SPACE OF TIME, SIR, COULD THEY ALSO HAVE
CONDUCTED TESTS INVOLVING THE USE OF AN INTERNAL STANDARD LIKE
THE ONE POINTED OUT TO YOU BY COUNSEL FROM CAMBRIDGE TO QUANTIFY
THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD BEING TESTED IN THE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE
REFERENCE SAMPLE?
A THEY COULD HAVE QUANTITATED THE AMOUNT OF EDTA. TO
QUANTITATE THE BLOOD THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO USE A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE.
Q BUT THEY COULD HAVE ADOPTED A PROCEDURE TO QUANTITATE
THE BLOOD?
A YES.
Q AND THEY COULD HAVE THEN TESTED THAT BLOOD?
A YES.
Q AND THEY COULD HAVE THEN QUANTITATED THE EDTA PRESENT
IN THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE REFERENCE BLOOD?
A YES, THEY COULD HAVE.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS DEFENSE 1274, SIR.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS?
A WELL, WHEN I MADE THE FIVE MICROLITERS BLOOD SAMPLE I
WAS ABLE TO CUT IT IN PIECES AND DETERMINE MY MINIMUM DETECTABLE
AMOUNT OF BLOODSTAIN.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO SHOW HERE?
A WELL, I NEEDED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF BLOOD IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE MINIMUM -- THE MINIMUM DETECTABLE AMOUNT, SO I
PLACED A KNOWN AMOUNT OF BLOOD AND TOOK A PORTION OF THAT AND
TESTED IT.
Q OKAY.
WERE YOU TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHAT THAT AMOUNT OF
BLOOD WOULD LOOK LIKE?
A NO.
Q THAT WAS JUST BLOODSTAINS SHOWING THAT WAS THE AMOUNT
THAT YOU WERE TESTING?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q NOT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU WERE SHOWN -- I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE SHOWN PEOPLE'S 544-E -- AND
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE INFORMALLY THESE. I'M GOING TO ASK LEAVE OF
THE COURT TO LABEL THEM WITH HANDWRITING OR TYPING THAT IS BETTER
THAN MINE.
OKAY. THESE SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EVIDENCE
BLOODSTAIN ON THE GATE?
A YES.
Q AND IN THIS CHART YOU INDICATED THAT THE 160 WAS NOT
SHOWN IN THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALTHOUGH YOU HAD INDICATED YOU DETECTED IT YOU
THOUGHT IN THE SCAN WHERE YOU WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THE DAUGHTER
160 ON THE GATE EVIDENCE, CORRECT?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT DOES THIS SIGNIFY TO YOU THAT WHEN YOU RAN THE
FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM TO TRY AND ACHIEVE 293, 160 AND 132 AT THE
SAME TIME, YOU COULD NOT DO SO?
A IT INDICATED TO ME THAT I COULD NOT IDENTIFY EDTA
BECAUSE I NEEDED THOSE IONS TO IDENTIFY EDTA.
Q AND YOU HYPOTHESIZED WITH MR. BLASIER THAT THE 160
WAS BELOW YOUR DETECTABLE LIMIT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WELL, IF IT IS BELOW YOUR DETECTABLE LIMIT, SIR, THEN
CAN IT BE EDTA FROM PRESERVED BLOOD?
A NO, IT CANNOT.
Q IS THAT BECAUSE THE SIGNAL GIVEN -- NO MATTER HOW
SMALL THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD, THE SIGNAL GIVEN FOR EDTA BLOOD IS SO
STRONG THAT YOU SHOULD GET THE FULL DAUGHTER SPECTRUM WHENEVER
YOU RUN IT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND SO YOU DID NOT?
A AND I DID NOT IN THIS CASE.
Q YOU WERE SHOWN THIS CHART, SIR, BY MR. BLASIER?
A YES, I WAS.
Q DOES THAT CHART REFLECT ANY TESTING THAT YOU EVER
CONDUCTED?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q DOES THAT CHART REFLECT ANY RESULT THAT YOU EVER
OBTAINED IN ANY TEST?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q DOES THAT CHART HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE AND ACTUALLY OBTAINED THE RESULTS IN IN THIS
CASE?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q DOES THAT CHART REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING OF
ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q OR ANY OF THE REFERENCE SAMPLES IN THIS CASE?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q IS THAT AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY AS IT
RELATES TO THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF EDTA FOUND IN
PRESERVED BLOOD VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF WHATEVER SUBSTANCE THAT IS
IN THE EVIDENCE STAINS?
A COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE?
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD.
MS. CLARK: I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY AND READ IT.
Q DOES THIS CHART, SIR, REFLECT YOUR -- ACCURATELY
REFLECT YOUR TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE DISCREPANCY, THE DRAMATIC
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EDTA SIGNAL YOU GOT FROM THE REFERENCE
SAMPLES, THAT MEANS BLOOD FROM PRESERVED EDTA TUBES, AND THE
EVIDENCE STAINS IN THIS CASE?
A THIS CHART DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OF THE TESTING THAT I
DID WHATSOEVER.
Q DOES IT ACCURATELY REFLECT ANY OF YOUR TESTIMONY, IN
YOUR OPINION, CONCERNING THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
SIGNALS YOU GOT IN THE REFERENCE SAMPLE AND THE EVIDENCE STAINS?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, YOU HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO --
MS. CLARK: THAT WAS DEFENSE 127 --
MR. BLASIER: 1271-C.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q NOW, YOU RECALL BEING SHOWN A SQUARE FROM THE SOCK --
THERE WAS A CHART DONE BY THE DEFENSE --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MS. CLARK: DEFENSE 1257-E.
Q SIR, DO YOU REMEMBER THIS DIAGRAM?
A YES, I DO.
Q IT INDICATES THAT 207 WAS TAKEN FROM THE LOWER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER AS YOU FACE THIS DIAGRAM?
A YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR NOT?
A NO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE 207 CAME FROM.
Q WHEN YOU RECEIVED 207 WAS IT A CUTTING IN A TUBE?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND THEN YOU TOOK A CUTTING FROM THAT?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU IN FACT DID TEST 207 AND
206 ON THE FIRST DAY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU TAKE A CUTTING FROM THE SMALL CUTTING YOU
FOUND IN THE TUBE MARKED 207?
A YES.
Q AND THE CUTTING 206 IS THE ONE YOU MADE FROM THE SOCK
ITSELF?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU DO NOT KNOW THEN WHETHER 207 ACTUALLY CAME --
CAME FROM THE AREA RIGHT NEXT TO 206?
A NO. TO MY UNDERSTANDING IT JUST CAME FROM SOMEWHERE
IN THAT BLUE AREA OR BLUE/GREEN AREA.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU DID THE COMBINED TESTING OF 206 AND
207, WAS THAT IN THE NEGATIVE ION MODE?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND YOUR RESULT WAS?
A NO EDTA WAS IDENTIFIED IN THAT PARTICULAR STAIN AND
THAT STAIN DID NOT COME FROM PRESERVED BLOOD.
Q NOW, SIR, YOU INDICATED -- I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE
TWO CHARTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 543 AND
544-F RESPECTIVELY.
THESE ARE LABELED -- THIS IS THE GATE WITH EDTA BLOOD
APPLIED. THIS IS WHERE YOU PUT KNOWN EDTA BLOOD ON THE GATE
SWATCH.
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: IF THE BLOOD RECOVERED FROM THE GATE,
THE EVIDENCE BLOOD IN THIS CASE, WERE ACTUALLY BLOOD FROM THE
TUBE WITH PRESERVATIVE EDTA IN IT, IS THIS THE SIGNAL YOU WOULD
EXPECT TO GET?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND WHEN YOU TESTED THE ACTUAL BLOOD RECOVERED FROM
THE GATE, THE EVIDENCE BLOOD, IS THAT THE SIGNAL YOU GOT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q AND LOOK AT THE CHART NOW UP.
A THAT IS THE SIGNAL I GOT, YES.
Q AND THAT IS THE SIGNAL YOU GOT THAT IS ON PEOPLE'S
544-E?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IF YOU HAD -- AND IF THE BLOOD ON THE SOCK HAD IN
FACT BEEN BLOOD FROM AN EDTA PRESERVED TUBE, WOULD YOU HAVE
EXPECTED TO GET THE SIGNAL SHOWN IN PEOPLE'S 543-F?
A YES, I WOULD HAVE.
Q AND IS THAT THE RESULT THAT YOU GOT?
A NO, IT IS NOT.
Q SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 543-E. THIS IS
THE -- YOUR GRAPH OF THE EVIDENCE BLOOD TESTED FOR EDTA ON THE
SOCK. THIS IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
IS THAT THE RESULT THAT YOU GOT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND IN EACH CASE, WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOOD RECOVERED
>FROM THE SOCK AND THE BLOOD RECOVERED FROM THE GATE, DID YOUR
TEST RESULTS CONSISTENTLY SHOW FROM MAY 19TH THROUGH MAY 22ND OR
23RD --
A 28TH.
Q -- 28TH, THAT THERE WAS NO EDTA PRESERVED BLOOD IN
THE STAIN ON THE GATE AND THE STAIN ON THE SOCK?
A IN ALL THE TESTS THAT I PERFORMED NO EDTA WAS
IDENTIFIED IN THE STAIN FROM THE GATE OR THE STAIN FROM THE SOCK.
THOSE STAINS DID NOT COME FROM EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT, SIR?
A I HAVE NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.
MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BLASIER:
Q AGENT MARTZ, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT YOUR ABILITY TO
QUANTIFY ANY OF THESE AMOUNTS IS -- RELIES UPON YOUR ABILITY TO
ACCURATELY CALCULATE OR ESTIMATE OR LOOK AT AND DETERMINE HOW
MUCH EVIDENCE YOU STARTED WITH?
A NOT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRESERVED AND
NON-PRESERVED BLOOD, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, NO.
Q YOU DON'T THINK THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU
STARTED WITH WHEN YOU TESTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ABILITY
TO DETECT --
MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: -- EDTA?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE WITH THE PRECAUTIONS I TOOK
THAT IT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WOULD YOU ALLOW AS HOW AN EXPERT
WITH A GREAT DEAL MORE EXPERIENCE THAN YOU MIGHT DIFFER WITH YOUR
OPINION?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: WOULD YOU ALLOW AS HOW AN EXPERT
WITH A GREAT DEAL MORE EXPERIENCE THAN YOU MIGHT DIFFER FROM YOUR
OPINION?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. EXPERIENCE IN WHAT?
THE WITNESS: EXPERIENCE IN WHAT?
Q BY MR. BLASIER: EDTA, MASS SPEC, DEGREES IN
CHEMISTRY, TOXICOLOGY, PHARMACOLOGY?
A I DON'T THINK ANYONE PROBABLY IN THE WORLD HAS MORE
EXPERIENCE WITH IDENTIFYING EDTA IN FORENSIC SAMPLES THAN I DO.
MR. BLASIER: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE COURT REPORTER,
PLEASE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS
FOR THE EVENING AT THIS TIME.
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 CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY
TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE.
AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED WE WILL STAND IN
RECESS UNTIL 9:00 A.M. TOMORROW MORNING.
AGENT MARTZ, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
DON'T GO AWAY, THOUGH.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL CLEAR THE JURY AND THEN I WANT TO TALK TO
COUNSEL.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(AT 5:00 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY,
JULY 27, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
)
VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995
VOLUME 194
PAGES 38887 THROUGH 39028, 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
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 194 PAGES 38887 - 39028
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
WEDNESDAY JULY 26, 1995 P.M. 38887 194
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. HODGMAN - H MR. COCHRAN - C MR. DARDEN D
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MS. LEWIS - L MR. BAILEY - B
MS. KAHN - K MS. CHAPMAN - SC MR. GOLDBERG -
GB MR. BLASIER - BB
MR. CLARKE - GC MR. UELMEN - U
MR. HARMON - RH MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. GORDON - G MR. NEUFELD - N
MR. KELBERG - BK
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
MARTZ, ROGER 194 M.
(RESUMED) 38892MC 38922BB 39007MC
(FURTHER) 39025BB
-----------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
MARTZ, ROGER 194 M.
(RESUMED) 38892MC 38922BB 39007MC
(FURTHER) 39025BB
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
549-A THRU 549-C - 38902 194
3 GRAPHS DESCRIBED AS SAMPLE - OPERATOR
BLOOD, NOT EDTA ADDED, RED TOP; SAMPLE --
OPERATOR BLOOD WITH EDTA; AND SAMPLE -
OPERATOR BLOOD NO EDTA
550-A & 550-B - 38908 194
2 GRAPHS DESCRIBED AS SAMPLE -- RMM BLOOD,
NO EDTA AND SAMPLE -- RMM BLOOD WITH EDTA
551-A & 551-B - 38911 194
GRAPH DESCRIBED AS SAMPLE -- EDTA BLOOD
FROM 1993
552 - BAR GRAPH 38914 194
ENTITLED "EDTA, JULY 22, 1995"
543-E - CHART 38921 194
COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBITS 543-A AND 543-C
543-F - CHART 38921 194
COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBITS 543-B AND 543-D
544-E - CHART 38921 194
COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBITS 544-A AND 544-B
544-F - CHART 38921 194
COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBITS 544-C AND 544-D
EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1271-C - SLIDE 38964 194
PRESENTATION RELATING TO THE STAIN ON GATE
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)
1270 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 38939 194
EXCERPT FOR THE PUBLICATION "CAMBRIDGE
ISOTOPE LABORATORIES, INC.
1271-A - SLIDE 38956 194
PRESENTATION RELATING TO THE STAIN ON GATE
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)
1271-B - SLIDE 38960 194
PRESENTATION RELATING TO THE STAIN ON GATE
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)
1272 - CHART 38972 194
DESCRIBED AS SAMPLE -- OPERATOR BLOOD
EDTA ADDED
1273 - CHART 38976 194
DESCRIBED AS SAMPLE -- DRESS K65
1274 - PHOTOGRAPH 38998 194
DEPICTING AN FBI RULER AND RED SPOTS ON FABRIC
1275 - PHOTOGRAPH 38998 194
DEPICTING RED SPOTS ON FABRIC
