Who was examining?

My turn Your Honor.

Okay. Go ahead. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Good afternoon, Dr. Rieders?

Good afternoon, sir.

Now, just so we're clear on this, in regard to the test for whether the stains from the sock and the back gate could have come from a purple top test tube, you didn't do any tests at all in that regard yourself, did you?

That is correct.

And you didn't run any experiment, at all, yourself, did you, Doctor?

Not this time, no.

All right. So everything that was done here was done by Agent Martz of the FBI?

Yes.

Right. So you're relying entirely upon the work that was done by Agent Martz of the FBI.

And submitted to me, that I'm aware of.

Yes.

This your—

Sure. Whatever you've looked at is entirely work results of Agent Martz, correct?

As far as I know, yes.

Now, Agent Martz did three different types of tests to determine whether or not the blood on the socks and the back gate could have come from a purple-top-test tube; isn't that true?

I thought one type, but tell me what that is.

Let's go through that. He did, and as Mr. Blasier pointed out, we can use shorthand like LCMSMS, can't we, as one of the kinds of—

Yeah, LCEMSMS.

The electro spray is the E?

Yes. Part of—

He did an LCEMSMS test in the positive ion mode, correct?

That's correct.

And he also did an LCESMSMS test in the negative ion mode correct?

I honestly don't recall.

You don't recall?

Yeah. But I—

We'll get to it.

It was positive ion.

He also did it in the negative-ion mode. Do you remember that?

No, I don't. But it's not unlikely.

Okay. And he also did something called an HPLC test, didn't he?

I didn't think he did an HPLC test to rule in or rule out EDTA, just to check the LC, that it would work, because it's part of the—you know, first you have to establish that the compound has a retention and LC; then you can go ahead with the other thing. I wasn't aware that he was doing actually analysis for EDTA in the materials—

All right.

-- by LC.

You don't remember that, but I'll show you.

Why don't we put this up on the Elmo, please.

This is a chart done by Agent Martz; it's Exhibit 561.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Perhaps this will help you remember this, Doctor. This is a chart that's out of focus right now.

It's getting there.

Getting there. A little more. See if you can get me these numbers down here, Steve. (Indicating to Elmo screen.) That's good. We can do it a part at a time.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This is a chart, Doctor, of—that you've seen before, which is a bar graph done by Roger Martz to show his test results of these evidence samples and the known samples in the negative ion mode of the LCESMSMS test. And you remember, Doctor, that he tested for both back gate and the socks known samples; that is, samples of blood that contain EDTA as if they came from a purple-top tube, correct?

Yeah. I don't recall that it was negative ion, but fine.

Okay?

Fine. That's all right.

Trust me, it is.

Yeah.

So on this negative ion test, he got these very large results showing the presence of EDTA in the two known samples. Do you recollect that, Doctor?

Yeah. He had known amounts of blood that he processed, and that's what he got from it.

And he used that to establish how EDTA in—in blood from a purple-top-test tube would look on his system, correct?

If he took that amount of blood that he used in the analysis, yes. If you take less, you see less; if you take more, you take more.

Now, move the chart over a little bit.

Um-hum.

And then these are the two charts for the evidence samples that he tested in the negative ion mode. And you'll recall now, won't you, Doctor, that he found no evidence that of EDTA at all in a negative ion mode, correct?

No, I don't recall that.

You don't remember that?

I mean, you know.

You've just forgotten that part of it?

I—it's been a year and a half since I looked at all of these, and—

All right. Well, Agent Martz will come out and tell us about that later. Let's now go to the next one. This is another chart that Agent Martz put together, and this is from that second test that he did the—which I—maybe we'll remember now— the AHPLC test. And again, Agent Martz had got the same kind of results when he did the HPLC test; that is, very clear, distinct EDTA results from the known samples; no EDTA in the two evidence samples. Do you remember that, Doctor?

What's the number on that?

That number is 566.

the previous one.

561.

That isn't quite how I remember. May I tell you how I remember?

(BY MR. LAMBERT) You answer my questions, and you can have Mr. Blasier ask the questions later.

That's not how I remember.

So you don't remember Roger Martz saying that he tested for EDTA in the HPLC test and got completely negative for EDTA? You don't remember that?

I remember it differently.

Okay. We'll have Agent Martz testify about that.

Objection. Move to strike the commentary.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you do recall the third kind of test was the so-called positive ion test in the LCESMSMS mode, right?

Yes. That's one that I was asked to review for this occasion.

So that's the only one that you recollect, sitting right here, now?

I reviewed it, so naturally, I recollect it.

Say again?

I reviewed it for this occasion, and so I recollect that, but. . .

Okay. You don't remember the other stuff as well because it's been a long time?

I didn't review it, so I can't tell you I don't remember.

All right. Now, and again when he ran his test in the positive ion mode, he ran both known samples containing EDTA and these two evidence samples, correct?

Yeah. He did them differently, though. He ran them, but differently.

Well, he ran known samples and he ran evidence samples. True?

But differently.

Okay. Well, we'll get to that. And when he ran them, it produced some of those little grafts like you were shown by Mr. Blasier?

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This is 562.

Wait a minute. What was this?

That one was 566.

These look familiar.

566 on the monitor now.

The first one is 561. The second read paragraph is 566.

This is not a third one, it's the second.

This is the second.

The witness has the third.

May I see that?

I'm going to put them on the—

Yes.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) These are a couple of the graphs. These happen to be for Q206 and the control for Q206, K67, right, Doctor?

Yeah, the positive control.

The positive control. Let me show them to Mr. Blasier so he knows which one I'm talking about. Let's put up first the test result for the evidence item. Now, this is one of the test results that you have pointed to, to establish that your you believe EDTA could be in this particular evidence sample. Correct, Doctor?

Not quite. I said I believe it was in the particular evidence sample. It could be. And it actually was.

Okay. So you believe that this actually establishes that EDTA is present?

In my opinion, yes.

And this is where they were testing at for the 160 ion, correct?

The daughter ion, yes.

The daughter ion?

This is the total ion.

And this is the—is this one of the critical tests, from your perspective, to determine EDTA is present in this evidence sample?

It's one of them, both of them are, really. They're equally important.

And all of this stuff that we see right here, that's noise, isn't it?

That's correct.

So this particular peak that you're seeing for the evidence sample is very close to the noise in this test?

No. Heavens, no.

It's—well, there are many scientists who will say the peak should be at least three times the height of the noise, true?

For what purpose?

For determining whether a peak should even be called a peak, Doctor.

Well, not anymore, that's not the standard way of measuring noise, by comparing noise with signals as such. But you use a statistical approach.

Um-hum. What's your statistical approach?

That you average this noise. And when you do that, you get an average and variations around it. And the unit of variations is called a standard deviation. And what you're—what you look for— at least what I look for, and my colleagues look for, is three standard deviations above noise is an acceptable detection limit. In some cases, two standard units.

In case—did you actually do the calculations and running all that out?

Huh?

Did you actually do the calculations of the standard deviation in this case?

Well, only roughly, because I have no numbers. I had to measure those peaks. But Yes, I did.

And what were they? You calculated them?

Yeah. I don't know. But this was much more than three times the standard deviation.

We'll get to that. Let's take a look—

THE COURT REPORTER: What was that number first?

These are both 562.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This is the same test run on the unknown sample. True, Doctor?

I beg your pardon?

This a test run on the known sample?

This a positive control—

Right.

-- with a known amount of blood and a known amount of EDT

A.

Right. And here there's reason for noise on this chart, right, Doctor?

That's correct.

And that's because this peak is really way, way larger than the peak to—for the evidence sample, isn't it?

Yeah. What he put on there is just totally beyond—beyond that. Certainly, I mean, the amount that he put on is so much more than the evidence sample that it swamps all the noise.

You weren't there at all 'cause—you weren't there?

I beg your pardon?

You don't—you weren't there; you don't know whether he put on more or not?

Yes, he did. He said how much he put on.

How much—what he put on?

He put how much EDTA actually went on that sample to make it a positive control.

He put the amount of EDTA on that sample that would be found in blood from a purple-top-test tube?

Yes.

Now, this is—

But he put—

-- now?

-- no, no.

I want you to answer my question.

No. The answer is no.

The answer is no. Fine. All right. Let it be no, then. Now, this peak is way higher than the peak in the evidence sample; isn't that right?

Of course.

And the machine automatically calibrates itself to take into account the difference in peak height, doesn't it?

It ratios itself, yeah, yes. This is 100 percent. Whatever that is, and it's a lot. So any small amount can just disappear below it. It would be less than 1 percent or something like that.

So let me show you another chart.

This will be the next in order.

2294.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this is a chart, where we have now placed on this chart both the information from the known sample that we know contains EDTA, and the information from the evidence sample, okay?

May I look at this just a second? (Pause.)

Yeah, that's an artificial on the— okay.

Could I have him look at it directly because it's difficult to see the numbers.

Yeah. Maybe you have a copy. I'll put it back on this chart that's been prepared by Detective Terry Lee from the City of Hope who the jury will be hearing from shortly.

Move to strike the comment.

It is—

Could we get a ruling instead of dialogue?

Just a minute. Are you representing that you're going to lay foundation on that?

Yes, I am.

You may inquire as to that but you may not describe who did it or why.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) What this is, Doctor, is a chart that contains all of the information from those that we just saw, that is the evidence sample, Q206, and the control, all charted on one graph, okay, rather than on separate graphs.

But it's not because in the other ones there are numbers attached to this, both as to retention and to peak height and to area.

We have numbers right over here and numbers right up here. (Indicating.)

Well, yeah, I don't see any numbers for this.

Right here?

Or for this.

Well, this is the one I'm going to ask you about, this Q206.

May I see it again?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Let me put this back up on the Elmo.

Do you have an extra copy of that?

I don't.

I'd like to have it while you ask questions.

Your Honor, we have not seen it.

Well, go stand over there so you can see it, Mr. Blasier. (Indicating to go to the Elmo screen.)

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The truth of the matter is, Doctor, that the evidence sample tested by Roger Martz is showing this level of a peak compared to the control sample; isn't that true?

Yes.

It's a huge difference?

Compared to EDTA blood from a tube.

Right. There's a very dramatic difference between the two?

About 15 fold, 15 times less blood found here than up there, so you expect—

15 times?

Less.

EDTA?

No, less blood.

Well, you don't know that, Doctor, do you Doctor?

Yes. I mean it if it's EDTA blood it has to be 15 times less. In one case it's half a cc. In another case it's 15 times less.

Well, Doctor, you're just guessing at that, aren't you, there's nothing at all in Roger Martz's test results that lead you to that conclusion at all, is there, Doctor?

He didn't have any idea of how much blood he used, but if this is supposed to be EDTA blood, then it is merely 15 times less of the blood than the other one. If you take less blood, you get a smaller peak.

Or this could be not blood from a purple top test tube, correct, Doctor?

It could be mixed blood, yeah. It could be anything.

Exactly. And this we know is blood from a purple top test tube?

So I'm assuming, certainly.

It could be there's a lot of explanations for it. One explanation you're trying to give is that the quantification wasn't done properly? I'm asking you.

No.

You're not giving us an answer.

That is not the explanation for this.

When Roger Martz says that's what he did—

Objection, hearsay.

Overruled.

When Roger Martz says that what he did to be sure that the amount of blood that he used in the evidence sample was actually greater than the amount of blood he used in the control sample, you're saying that he must have been wrong?

So you're saying he is wrong?

He is wrong.

And he's got to be wrong at least 10 fold?

15.

15 fold?

If this is EDTA blood.

You're assuming it is. It might not be, this might not be, right?

Well, this is blood with EDTA in it. He didn't know how much blood he analyzed here, he knows how much he analyzed there, so he can't say anything—

But it might not be blood from a purple top test tube because it isn't a mountain, it's a molehill, isn't it, Doctor?

Look, this might not be blood from a purple top test tube.

What might this one?

The other one but you tell me it is, so I accept that.

Good. Accept that.

I don't know where this came from. All I'm saying is that most commonly, EDTA blood comes from an EDTA test tube.

Right. And if it is blood from an EDTA test tube, and if Roger Martz is correct as to the quantities that he used, then this molehill should be a mountain, and it's not?

Well, I can't make two assumptions based on each other, but if permitted to, then if both these things are true, then that is true.

Okay. Thank you. And you don't know yourself, of your own personal knowledge, whether Roger Martz is correct or incorrect in his statement that he used less blood here than he did there? You don't know that of your own personal knowledge?

That he used less blood?

Less blood for the evidence sample than he did for the control, you don't know?

Less blood?

Yes, sir. You don't know of your own—no, I'm sorry, more blood from the evidence sample than the control sample, you don't know of your own personal knowledge whether he's right or wrong about that?

Yes, I know from my own personal knowledge, from studying what he has done, that he's absolutely wrong, he has no idea how much blood he used there, he can't have any, he never measured it.

Well, he didn't measure it the way you would measure it, right?

He didn't measure it, period.

Well, he—no, he did measure it, and in the sense—sense that he took swatches of different sizes making sure he used a smaller swatch for the control, true?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

That's—I believe what he did is he took swatches of different sizes.

Right?

No, actually, he made lots of different sizes. That's what he—what I remember, blood dots of different sizes.

Right. And then he also testified and, you will recollect this, I'm sure, sir, 'cause you heard him say it, that he looked at this blood and determined that this blood had a consistency that was sufficiently strong, it was dark red blood, it wasn't diluted blood, that he felt comfortable that this— the evidence sample had more blood in it than the control.

Objection. This is not a question.

That's not what I recall.

Excuse me. It's overruled. If that's testimony that this witness has been knowledgeable about in forming his opinion, I think it's permissible examination.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you will agree, Doctor, that what you are seeing for the evidence samples on these runs—

Um-hum.

-- that could be something other than EDTA all together, it could be another compound, true?

Well, it can always—it's possible.

True or false?

15 million compounds.

True is the answer?

It's possible.

True?

Yes.

It could be something else?

But unlikely.

In your opinion. Secondly, it could be that this evidence sample contained trace amounts of EDTA not from a purple top test tube, but from some other source all together, true?

I can't think of any other source, but if you name one I can tell you whether I consider it possible.

What about contamination in the laboratory; that's possible?

With what? With EDTA?

Yes?

Yeah, it—

Okay.

That's what I mean as one possibility. I think it's unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Well, let me ask you this, Doctor, is it true that Agent Martz tested his own unpreserved blood?

Yes.

Yes. And he—

That's what I mean—that's what he showed me, yes.

And when he tested his own unpreserved blood—

Um-hum.

-- he got a result just like the evidence sample, didn't he?

And he tested more than one time, his own blood, true?

Yes. I don't know how often.

Yeah, and he got—he got results very much like this evidence sample?

Exactly like it. If you look at it, you can't tell the difference.

And you—your testimony, Doctor, is that that is an impossible result, correct?

In my opinion, yes.

He—

God willing, anything is possible, but, you know, totally improbable.

He could not have the amount of EDTA in his own blood that you say that test shows; isn't that right?

Not if he hasn't injected himself with EDTA or somehow or other contaminated it because that's about—according to both some recent work and this, that would be the amount there, you couldn't see that unless you had a ton of blood and extracted it, because the amount that's here is—is several micrograms. The amount that you would find in a normal person is somewhere in the parts per billion. This—whatever it was, had to be parts per billion because you can't detect it at parts per billion.

So Agent Martz got the very same kind of results that he got from the evidence sample out of his own blood and you say that couldn't possibly really show EDTA in his own blood, true?

I'm as reasonably certain as I can be, scientifically, and on the basis of everything that's been published and presented, that it is virtually impossible for him, if he has normal blood, to have EDTA in it, but you can see by this method— 8

Right. And isn't it true, Doctor, that a very likely explanation for the test results showing this level of what would be EDTA in Roger Martz's own blood is that there was some EDTA left in his instrument when he tested his own blood, that's what's creating this ghosting effect; isn't that true, Doctor?

No, it is absolutely not true, because if you look at the sequence prior to this, that the run prior to it didn't show if you're running this blank, after that you might get it. Not much more because I said up to 10 percent, and this is actually 15 percent of what you have here.

Well, Doctor, let me—

I'm sorry 15.

In your personal experience, you using the electro spray equipment?

Um-hum.

Can't you have contamination that appears sometimes and doesn't appear other times; isn't that a common phenomenon with the electro spray equipment?

Only after you had a strong positive you get a weak positive sometimes in the next injection. You don't get it somewhere the next day or something.

Well, let me ask you this, Doctor. How many hundreds of times have you used the electro spray equipment with tandem mass spectrometry?

Did I say I used it tons of times?

How many times have you used it?

I've used it outside of our facility maybe half a dozen times.

Since when?

And—excuse me. And we obtained this instrument and after it was set up I've gone to maybe 20, 30 runs.

20 or 30 runs?

Yes, that's about right. But I also have studied the literature on it.

And that's with LCESMSMS, right?

Yes.

You have that in your lab now?

I have two—well, I have one LCMSMSMSMS and one LCMS.

And you've just gotten those since the criminal trial?

Oh, yes, relatively recently.

And you had all these opinions before you even got those in your lab, true?

Yeah, well, that's the literature, experience, this is not something new.

Well, the whole question of this issue of ghosting during the process is something that people that operate the machine day in and day out are going to know a lot about; isn't that true?

What are they going to know a lot about?

The phenomenon of ghosting that takes place in this process is something that experienced operators of the machine are going to know a lot about, true?

They certainly should, yes.

And you're not an experienced operator of the machine, are you?

Well, I'm not, but I know a lot about it, too.

Well, you're somebody that's testified in court a lot; isn't that right, Doctor?

No, not because of that. I've done an awful lot of LCM gas chromatography and ghosting occurs in all molds. It's nothing special about this.

And going back to the graph we have here with the mountain and the molehill, if Roger Martz is correct that he was using more blood in the evidence system than in the control sample, then you cannot tell this jury that this molehill is blood containing EDTA from a purple top test tube, can you, Doctor?

Well, I'm telling you he didn't—he couldn't have had any idea of how much blood he used in—

Just follow—just answer my question with my hypothetical. If he's right—

If you bring it into the question. Could you put that in there.

Sure. If Roger Martz is correct that he was using more blood in the evidence sample than he was in this control sample, is—that is more in the molehill than in the mountain?

Um-hum.

Then that molehill cannot represent blood from a purple top test tube, can it?

He can still do that if the EDTA degraded over the period of time since it was placed wherever it was.

But you've done no experiment to determine how fast EDTA degrades, have you, Doctor?

Not how fast it degrades, but it does degrade. It's a well known fact.

You don't know at what rate it degrades at?

Well, in strong ultraviolet light like sunlight, pretty rapidly, but I haven't got any—how fast I can tell you that.

There's no literature in the forensic field showing how fast EDTA degrades in blood, is there, Doctor?

It's not in the forensic field. This is what is done in the environmental chemistry field, which really is forensic, but not like this, no.

Isn't it the case, Dr. Rieders, that Agent Martz testified that—excuse me, Agent Martz tested some other blood containing EDTA that was two years old, and he still obtained this mountain kind of result from that two-year old blood, true?

Oh, yeah, sure.

So we know that it still shows up a couple years later, right?

If it's frozen in the dark, yes.

So you're saying maybe environmental conditions might somehow explain how this mountain turned out to be a molehill; is that what you're saying?

No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if Roger Martz is correct that the amount of blood that he used to get that little molehill down there was less than the amount of blood that he used, if he's correct in that, where he got the mountain then that blood, the little molehill blood, came from an area that was outdoors, dry, wet when it rained, exposed to the sun, exposed to the elements, and then it was collected, and it is during that period that it meets the condition of the degradation that has been tested in EPA world.

You're saying it may be another explanation for how the mountain gets down to the molehill?

No, I don't think so. I think my explanation is much more correct.

This one you're looking at right here, these are the socks, Doctor, these socks were collected the day after the murders, they were in a laboratory freezer in the serology department at LAPD, weren't they?

I understand they were not in the laboratory freezer, but that's beside the point.

They were. They weren't out laying around getting rained on, were they?

No, not the socks, as far as I know.

Yeah?

Certainly not.

And, in fact, the results that Roger Martz got from both the socks and the blood on the back gate were just about the same, weren't they?

No, if you look at the chromatogram, they differ.

Not much, though, right?

Well, we don't know how much blood was used.

But the chromatograms don't differ much, do they, they're pretty similar?

Yes, they are. They are—

Right?

-- pretty similar in the noise level, too.

And those two items, the blood from the back gate, blood from the socks, they were subject to very different environmental conditions, weren't they, Doctor, yes or no?

I expect, yes.

Okay. So doesn't sound like the environment is the explanation for how that mountain got into that molehill, does it, Doctor?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

I didn't say that.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.

It could well be, nevertheless.

Well, a lot of things could be, right, doctor?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

Well, reasonably could be.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, one of your complaints about the work done by Roger Martz, apparently is that he did not specifically quantify the way you would have done it, the amount of blood that he's testing; is that right?

It's not a complaint. What it is, is it leads me to my conclusions about what was done and that nobody knows how much blood was used, and therefore you don't know what the concentration was.

And because you don't know what the concentration is, you can't really determine whether this little molehill really is a mountain or just a molehill; is that right?

On here it's a molehill. The amount of blood it represents, I don't know, and it could be such a smidgen, that indeed, that's why it's a molehill.

Or it could be, as Agent Martz said, more blood than the control and that means it's not blood from a purple top tube, true?

Probably.

Right?

But very unlikely.

Okay. That's—we'll get to that. Isn't it true that since the time of the criminal trial, that Dr. Kevin Ballard has developed a specific methodology for testing for EDTA in blood, and quantifying the amount of EDTA in blood?

He had that before. I know Ballard.

Yes.

He presented it since then at the meeting.

Yeah. And Dr. Ballard is another expert retained by Mr. Simpson, true?

Yes, he was.

Your Honor, I'm going to object.

At least as far as I know.

Just a minute.

I'm going to object and ask to approach, please.

Okay.

Your Honor, I expect Mr. Lambert is going to be asking questions about testing that Mr.—Dr. Ballard may or may not have done. I have no knowledge of that. It would be inappropriate for Mr. Lambert to make any kind of argument to that effect, that we were going to do testing, we didn't or we did testing. Dr. Ballard is one of our consultants. He's not going to testify. So I would object to this line of questioning.

What I did ask, Your Honor, is if Dr. Ballard has developed the methodology for doing these tests different methodology, employed a valid methodology that he could do the test to make a specific determination as to whether this blood came from a purple top test tube or not, that he has the capacity to do that. I will then argue to the jury, as I'm entitled to do, that they have an expert in their employ who could do these tests, who they could have had do the specific test, and he can do this. The jury can make whatever inference they want from that.

Specific instruction on best evidence available.

A little bit familiar with best evidence instruction.

I bet you are.

Objection overruled. You may approach to that extent. You may not go beyond.

I won't ask him about tests he did.

Okay.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Before we go back to Dr. Ballard, let me ask you a couple of clarification questions, Doctor. The only evidence items that you are aware of that ever got tested for EDTA were the ankle area of the sock and the back gate, true?

I think there was also some pieces of clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson tested.

All right. They tested her dress; is that right?

Dress, right.

They actually found a little bit of EDTA in the material of the dress?

Yes. That wasn't surprising.

'Cause EDTA is a very common chemical that is used in a lot of different ways in our society, right?

Yes, it is.

And aren't there something like 50 million pounds of EDTA manufactured a year?

I don't know.

Huge amount. It's in paint, it's in food, it's in all kinds of things?

That's correct.

Now, so the only evidence items you know of are this one from the sock, the one from the back gate, and her dress; is that right?

Yes, I think that's all.

And no other area on the sock other than this center cut-out that Mr. Blasier showed you in his little graph?

As far as I know, yes. 1

Okay. Now, let's go back to Dr. Ballard. Dr. Ballard was present in court when you testified at the criminal trial?

Some of the time I believe.

Present when Roger Martz testified, true?

Objection, irrelevant.

Overruled.

I—I don't recall that. It may have been. I really didn't pay that much attention.

He was an expert retained by Mr. Simpson at that time, true?

I—as far as I know, yes, he was retained by—whether Mr. Simpson or one of the lawyers, I don't know.

And Dr. Ballard has published his own methodology for testing for EDTA in blood and specifically quantifying the amount of EDTA, true?

Well, for testing for it and also measuring it certainly.

It's a different method than Roger Martz used, isn't it?

It's gas chromatography instead of liquid chromatography. In gas chromatography you don't use electro spray.

He has developed—synthesized in his own laboratory, an internal control that aids in quantifying the levels of the EDTA that he finds in blood?

Yes.

All right.

A radioactive carbon label.

So he now, in his laboratory, is perfectly capable of making a precise determination whether this molehill is just a molehill or a mountain; isn't that right?

If he has the information about how much blood it came from, yes. Otherwise he's no better off than Roger was.

Well, he can take evidence samples that still exist from the back gate and the socks and run the tests himself, can't he, Doctor?

I don't know that. I see no reason why not, but I can't tell you that. You have to ask him.

Well, he's certainly done tests on other evidence items that you've seen published, haven't you?

Not on evidence items.

Objection.

Whatever I've seen published is researched.

Okay. But based on that research, you certainly believe he would be capable of performing such a test, correct, Doctor?

Yes, I think so. 1

Sustain the objection.

Move to strike.

Stricken. Mr. Lambert, you knew you weren't supposed to go into that.

I'm sorry, Your Honor.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Let me ask you about something else then, Doctor. And we're almost finished. Let me ask you—before we get to my last area, let me ask this: How much have you been paid by Mr. Simpson so far?

Total?

Yeah.

For the criminal trial, I really don't know, I think we got about $5,000 from the bill. I'm not sure. It's done by our CFO. This one we received a retainer check, I think it was $10,000.

Wasn't the criminal trial more like 20,000, Doctor?

I don't think we received that. I don't know. I mean, to tell you the truth, I know it was a fraction of the total bill that has been settled so far.

Okay. There's still some owed?

I think the total bill was 46. I don't know. Don't ask me. I don't do the billing.

Let me ask you just this one final area then, Doctor. I want you to assume that the blood on the socks is Q206, we see up here?

I'm sorry, is what?

I want you to assume that this blood from the socks, Q206, the evidence sample we're talking about, right, I want you to assume that that blood could only have come from being splashed on the socks while they were being worn by the killer during the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, or was later placed on the socks out of the reference vial of Nicole's blood removed from her body at autopsy. Okay?

I understand.

Objection, compound, two different hypotheticals.

I'm not done.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) I want you to assume that fact, that the blood could only have come from one of two places; it was splashed on the socks while the killer was wearing them or it was later placed on the socks out of the reference vial taken at her autopsy, that that is an EDTA reference vial, okay?

Okay.

Could only have come from one of those two places. I want you to further assume that Dr. Robin Cotton—

Let me make a note because I'll—

Okay.

-- want to keep it straight.

Go right ahead. (Witness writes on piece of paper at witness stand.)

That's assumption one. Now the next assumption.

Okay. You got that? The blood only came from one of those two places?

Yes.

Next, I want you to further assume that Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark Diagnostics, a forensic microbiologist and DNA expert, studied the DNA in the socks and the DNA in the reference vial from the autopsy and concluded that the blood on the socks could not have come from the blood in the reference vial because the DNA in the blood in the reference vial was substantially more degraded than the DNA in the blood in the socks.

I'll object to that. That misstates—

There are too many—there is more than one question in here. I won't be able to answer you.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) I want you to assume that set of facts, that Dr. Cotton has done that study and made that conclusion.

Objection, that misstates her testimony.

It doesn't, Your Honor.

Irrelevant, hypothetical.

Overruled.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) So—

Let me make sure I understand what you said. You said that it has been testified that the blood in the tube was more degraded than the blood on the sock?

Yes.

Okay.

You got that?

Yes. Let me note that down. Okay.

So you—in making the opinions that you gave here today, Dr. Rieders, you did not take into account the conclusions of Dr. Cotton in regard to the DNA levels in the blood and the reference vial, did you?

Objection, misstates her testimony, it's argumentative.

Overruled.

I have no further questions, Your Honor.

Redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Dr. Rieders, isn't it accurate that the negative ion mode, which is the charts that you examined and testified to, is by far the most sensitive test between positive ion mode and just straight HPLC?

In most cases, yes. Not always, but in most cases.

Is it also accurate that it was the Los Angeles District Attorney's office that decided which two stains to test for EDTA?

That what?

Objection.

It was the Los Angeles District Attorney's office that decided which stains to test for EDTA and which to not test.

Overruled. If you knew.

That's what I was given to understand but I certainly have no contact with them to know that.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is it also accurate that Roger Martz never had testified in the criminal trial that his results were the results of the ghosting?

Of ghosting?

Yes.

No, that—that he said afterwards.

Okay. And did he also make a statement of trying to substantiate that experimentally and not being able to do it?

Objection, calls for hearsay.

You may inquire as to what he did that would establish that.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let me ask you this: Do you have any personal knowledge that he was ever able to substantiate that explanation?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

No, I have no such knowledge, never said.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in fact, did Dr. Ballard—that Mr. Lambert asked you questions about, since the criminal trial, did he do a study to determine whether or not a human being would have levels of EDTA in their blood of the same amount as found in these evidence stains?

Yes. Essentially, yes, he reported that at the mass spectrometer meeting.

What—did his study conclude whether a person would have naturally occurring EDTA in their blood at this level?

Hearsay, Your Honor.

Overruled.

He testified that in, I think it was 20 --

Excuse me. This is still—there's no explanation as to what he's testifying—

I'm going—asking about a study.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of a study that he did?

Yes, he did.

And one of the questions he was looking at was to try and find out whether or not a human being just picked at random would have levels of EDTA in their blood naturally occurring equivalent to the levels found in this case?

That's what he put his method to the test to, on some 20 people I believe.

And what was the conclusion?

Now, when Mr. Lambert asked you whether there could be another compound that had the same characteristics of this, how many organic compounds are there that we know of?

I said presently registered about 15 million compounds with the American Chemical Society.

And did Roger Martz attempt to locate a compound that might have the same characteristics as EDTA?

He said yes, he did, he did look through various data bases for something that's like it.

And are you aware of any compound other than EDTA that has the characteristics that were revealed in Agent Martz's test?

I looked and—I don't. And I looked too.

That's all I have.

I have nothing further.

You may step down.