Redirect examination of John Gerdes (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of John Gerdes (part 2) — Thursday, December 12, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\12\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-JOHN-G.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 31 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of John Gerdes (part 1) Re-redirect examination of John Gerdes ▶

Witness: Dr. John Gerdes
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, December 12, 1996 • Utterances: 100

Blasier uses redirect to reinforce Dr. Gerdes's contamination theory, focusing on the Rockingham glove's Simpson-consistent DNA as likely from Yamauchi's handling of the reference vial, and the poor quality of the original Bundy drops versus the August recollection. Blasier closes by defending Gerdes's credentials against Lambert's attack, noting Gerdes has been qualified as an expert by judges 35 times despite running a clinical rather than forensic lab.

# 1 (Defendants' Exhibit 293 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 2 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) When stains 30 and 31 were processed, there was such a small amount of DNA, they couldn't do RFLP testing on it, correct?

# 3 A:

That's correct.

# 4 Q:

And it was only after two months later, in August, did they go back and find, lo and behold, a lot more DNA, correct?

# 5 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope; leading; argumentative.

# 6 THE COURT:

I'll sustain that part.

# 7 Q:

BY MR. BLASIER: In 303, 304, 305, which were collected on August 29, there is a lot more DNA than there was in the original stains, correct?

# 8 A:

That's correct.

# 9 Q:

Much higher quality, too, right?

# 10 A:

I believe so, yes.

# 11 Q:

And it was from the console, 303, 304, 305?

# 12 A:

Yes, from the same area.

# 13 Q:

Now, about the Rockingham glove --

MR. P. BAKER: That is board 320.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry?

MR. P. BAKER: 320.

# 15 (Defendants' Exhibit 320 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 16 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, your testimony about the RFLP results only related to DNA consistent with the victims, correct?

# 17 A:

That's correct.

# 18 Q:

The only DNA found on the Rockingham glove consistent with Mr. Simpson were extremely small amounts of DNA in the wrist area, correct?

# 19 A:

That's correct.

# 20 Q:

And these gloves -- this glove was handled right after Mr. Yamauchi opened Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct?

# 21 A:

That's correct.

# 22 Q:

And Mr. Yamauchi testified at the criminal trial that he didn't remember changing his gloves between opening the reference vial and processing that glove. Do you recall that.

# 23 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Calls for hearsay, what he testified to -- somebody else testified to at the criminal trial.

# 24 THE COURT:

You can rephrase that.

I'll sustain the objection.

You may ask him if that was a factor that he considered.

# 25 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Was it a factor that you considered in deciding that Mr. Simpson's -- or blood consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove came from possible cross-contamination, the packet that Collin Yamauchi testified in the criminal trial, he didn't know whether he changed his gloves?

# 26 A:

Yes.

# 27 Q:

And the areas it, the wrist areas where those stains were found, were areas that were handled by Mr. Yamauchi with his hands, right after opening Mr. Simpson's reference blood, correct?

# 28 A:

That's correct.

# 29 Q:

And you're aware of the testimony? You relied on the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi that the blood came out of that reference tube, onto his gloves, and his chemwipes, correct?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

Now, you gave some testimony with respect to cross-contamination happening sometimes. You'll see evidence of more than one person as evidence of contamination incident, that's what you saw on 30 and 31, correct?

# 32 A:

Correct.

# 33 Q:

And sometimes you may only see evidence of one person. And tell me the example where that could happen?

# 34 A:

Where you would only see the evidence of one person?

# 35 Q:

Yeah.

# 36 A:

It's actually from two?

# 37 Q:

Yeah.

# 38 A:

That would be possible, certainly, if you had two homozygous individuals, the combining of those two would be, actually look -- appear to be one person, but it's actually from two.

# 39 Q:

How about excessively degraded samples?

# 40 A:

Yes.

# 41 Q:

Okay.

# 42 A:

Excessively degraded samples would be an example where the initial sample is so degraded, that the second contaminating DNA over -- over -- well, the original type, and all you see is the contaminant.

KEY QUOTE

# 43 Q:

And every one of the Bundy drops was excessively contaminated, weren't they?

# 44 A:

They were.

# 45 Q:

Unlike 117, which had high quality DNA, correct?

# 46 A:

Correct.

# 47 Q:

Now, from the results that Mr. Yamauchi got on the 14 and 15 from the Bundy swatches, you cannot conclude from that anything about the source of the blood on those swatches, can you?

# 48 A:

No.

# 49 Q:

Mr. Lambert asked you questions about transfers of DNA, and you mentioned something about glasses.

Do you recall reviewing the videotapes of Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence at the Rockingham crime scene?

# 50 A:

Yes.

# 51 Q:

Did you make any observation about her collection technique, vis-a-vis, her glasses in that video?

# 52 A:

Yes. There's a sequence there where she actually does take a glove and adjusts her glasses with her gloved hand and adjusts her glasses.

KEY QUOTE

# 53 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi never took any substrate controls from the glove, did he?

# 54 A:

No.

# 55 Q:

Now, Mr. Lambert asked you what was your basis for concluding that item 52 might be the result of cross-contamination.

Did you state everything that you considered in making that assessment?

# 56 A:

I believe I did. I may have forgotten something.

# 57 Q:

Now, he also asked you about validation studies.

Every case that you look at, you look at validation studies of the laboratory that you're looking at, correct.

# 58 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the court order.

# 59 MR. BLASIER:

He opened it up.

# 60 MR. LAMBERT:

No, no, no.

# 61 THE COURT:

You're not getting into the area where I ruled, are you?

# 62 MR. LAMBERT:

Yes, he is.

# 63 THE COURT:

If you are, the objection is sustained.

# 64 MR. BLASIER:

May we approach?

# 65 THE COURT:

No.

# 66 Q:

BY MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked about forensic testing, and you don't run a forensic lab correct?

# 67 A:

That's correct.

# 68 Q:

Now, the technology that's used by crime labs is technology that came from the clinical setting, in the medical setting that you work in, correct?

# 69 A:

The fundamental science is molecular biology. Then it goes to the clinical field. And then it goes to forensics. Usually that's the way it goes, yes.

# 70 Q:

In the forensic community, they didn't develop any of the fundamental sciences in just forensics?

# 71 A:

No, they outlined the fundamental sciences developed in molecular biology.

# 72 Q:

And would you agree that one of the critiques of the forensic community is the lack of controls that they have in terms of sample collection, preparation, contamination controls, et cetera?

# 73 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Critiqued by whom?

# 74 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 75 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Forensic labs that do this for a business, generally come in and say it's okay, don't they?

# 76 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 77 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 78 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) By the way, Dr. Gerdes, how many crime scenes has Robin Cotton processed?

# 79 A:

I believe she testified that she does not go to crime scenes, so I would say none.

KEY QUOTE

# 80 Q:

And she has no forensic experience whatsoever prior to Cellmark, correct?

# 81 A:

That's correct.

# 82 Q:

And Gary Sims, in the last five years, how many crime scenes has he processed?

# 83 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Lack of foundation.

# 84 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know?

# 85 A:

I notice he testified he hasn't gone to a crime scene in five years.

# 86 MR. LAMBERT:

Hearsay.

# 87 THE COURT:

Well, it's hearsay, but we'll allow it.

# 88 MR. BLASIER:

From all of the techniques that are used in forensics that you've testified here about, are techniques that were used previously, or for longer periods of time in the clinical setting that you do your work in, correct?

# 89 A:

That's correct.

# 90 Q:

And all of the issues that you talked about, contamination and sample processing, are all extremely important issues in the work that you do every single day, correct?

# 91 A:

Yes, that's true.

# 92 Q:

And in your opinion, do you need to be a forensic scientist in order to have any knowledge about DNA technology, as you do in your clinical lab?

# 93 A:

No.

# 94 Q:

In fact, in the 35 times that you've testified, this is always brought up, that you have a clinical lab and not a forensic lab; is that correct?

# 95 A:

That's true.

# 96 Q:

You've been qualified by judges 35 times to testify as an expert in this field?

# 97 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 98 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 99 A:

Yes. That's true.

# 100 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you. That's all I have.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. Gerdes

There's a sequence there where she actually does take a glove and adjusts her glasses with her gloved hand and adjusts her glasses.

Eyewitness observation from videotape of Mazzola contaminating her glove during evidence collection at Rockingham — a concrete, visual contamination moment.

Dr. Gerdes

Excessively degraded samples would be an example where the initial sample is so degraded, that the second contaminating DNA over -- over -- well, the original type, and all you see is the contaminant.

Explains the mechanism by which contamination could mask the true source on Bundy drops, undercutting the prosecution's DNA match results.

Dr. Gerdes

I believe she testified that she does not go to crime scenes, so I would say none.

Attacks Robin Cotton's forensic credibility — she has processed zero crime scenes, undermining her authority to challenge Gerdes's contamination conclusions.

Dr. Gerdes

Yes. That's true.

Confirms he has been qualified as a DNA expert by judges 35 times — direct rebuttal to Lambert's attack on his clinical (non-forensic) background.

Evidence (8)

Defendants' 293

Board displayed on Elmo — related to stains 30/31 and August recollection items 303-305

displayed

Defendants' 320

Board related to the Rockingham glove RFLP results

displayed

Informal

Stains 30 and 31 — original Bundy drops with insufficient DNA for RFLP

discussed

Informal

Items 303, 304, 305 — August 29 recollection from console area with higher quantity/quality DNA

discussed

Informal

Item 117 — high quality DNA reference sample compared to degraded Bundy drops

discussed

Informal

Item 52 — stain Gerdes assessed as possible cross-contamination result

discussed

+ 2 more

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Dr. Gerdes

Blasier elicits that Mazzola was observed on videotape adjusting her glasses with a gloved hand during Rockingham evidence collection — a specific, documented contamination act.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Dr. Gerdes

Blasier walks Gerdes through the mechanism by which excessively degraded samples can be entirely masked by a contaminating DNA source, applied directly to the Bundy drops.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Tom Lambert•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Blasier attempts to open validation study testimony; Lambert objects as beyond the court order; Fujisaki sustains without allowing a sidebar.

procedural

Robert Blasier•Dr. Gerdes

Blasier attacks Robin Cotton (zero crime scenes processed) and Gary Sims (no crime scene in five years) to reframe Gerdes's clinical background as an asset rather than a liability.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (4)

⚔ Robin Cotton

lack of forensic field experience

Gerdes confirms Cotton testified she has never processed a crime scene and had no forensic experience before Cellmark, undermining her standing to challenge his contamination opinions.

⚔ Gary Sims

lack of forensic field experience

Gerdes notes Sims testified he has not gone to a crime scene in five years, similarly diminishing his practical forensic authority.

⚔ Andrea Mazzola

observed procedural failure

Videotape shows Mazzola adjusting her glasses with a gloved hand during evidence collection — a concrete contamination vector documented on tape.

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

prior testimony / procedural failure

Blasier establishes that Yamauchi did not remember changing gloves between opening Simpson's reference vial and processing the Rockingham glove, supporting cross-contamination of Simpson's DNA onto the glove's wrist area.

Objections

8 objections (5 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8643 • 100 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103