Mr. Blasier.

Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Morning, Mr. Matheson.

Morning.

How are you today?

Good.

We've had quite a few discussions, you and I, during the course of the last two, two and a half years, have we not?

Yes, we have.

Since Mr. Simpson was acquitted on October 3 of 1995, can you give me a rough estimate of the total amount of time that you have spent on the Simpson case?

Well, it's interspersed with an awful lot of other things. Of the total time, oh, gosh, I don't know; probably 40 to 60 hours.

And of that 40 to 60 hours, how much of that has been at the request of the plaintiffs in this case?

And all of that includes just my personal preparation time and that type of thing, where I was dealing specifically just with the plaintiffs.

Or doing work that the plaintiffs requested that you do?

Well, no additional work was done as far as analytical type of work.

I don't know. I'd say probably 10 to 15, maybe. It's hard to estimate.

You say that there's no additional analytical work. You mean there was no additional testing or experimentation that you did on behalf of the plaintiffs?

There was no additional testing as far as analysis on evidence items.

Experimentation?

Yes.

There was no additional experimentation?

No. I'm sorry. There was an additional experiment that I ran.

How much time did you devote to that experiment?

Actual work time, possibly a couple hours.

Did you do that during the course of your county time?

Actually, I work for the city.

City?

Some of it was, some of it wasn't. I came in on my own time, just to check the results on something.

And a think you said 10 to 15 hours you spent working with the plaintiffs. Did I hear that correctly?

Well, no. I think again, these are very rough estimates. It has to do with, you know, like, meeting with them, also things like that, experiments that I'm talking about, performing a variety of just organizational type of tasks.

And let me ask you, have you ever, in the course of your career, done an experiment for a private party to a civil action?

It's kind of an interesting thing. I mean, there's a question there that needed to be answered. I'm not sure I did it just for the plaintiff in this case.

To answer your question, I have not ever performed an experiment specifically at the request of the plaintiff in a civil case.

And this experiment that you performed was at the request of the plaintiffs, correct?

It was a -- we brought up in my mind -- it was a question I wanted to answer during the course of the criminal case, and never had the time to do it. And during the course of discussions, I was reminded of it and chose to perform it.

There were many questions other than the one that dealt with that experiment that were raised during the course of the criminal trial with respect to the operations at your lab, were there not?

Yes, there was.

Have you done any experiments, since Mr. Simpson was acquitted in October of 1995, on any of those other issues?

No, I have not.

How many meetings have you had with the plaintiffs' attorneys?

Are we talking solely with them, defense not being present?

Correct.

Being spread out over the last many months, I'd have to say three to five, something like that.

And did you meet with them last night or this morning?

Not last night; this morning I did, yes.

And how long did you meet with them?

About an hour and 15 minutes, something like that.

Did they explain to you the parameters of your testimony?

Well, we did discuss the areas that we'd been covering, yes.

Now, you did quite a bit of testing, yourself, in this case, did you not, of conventional serological testing?

Yes, I did.

Now, Exhibit No. 216, which was the chart -- do you have that in front of you?

Talking about the summary of --

Correct?

-- items?

Yeah.

Yes, I do.

Now, you prepared that; is that correct?

No, I did not.

Who prepared that?

It was provided to me by the plaintiff.

So this is not a document generated by the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division?

I did not generate it; that's correct.

So this is not a business record; this is not a record that was prepared by your agency, correct?

This particular document was not prepared by our agency, yes.

When were you presented with this document?

I believe that was last Tuesday.

And did you spend time going over the document and determining whether it was accurate or not?

Yes, I did.

How much time did you spend doing that?

Probably, if I added up all the little bits and pieces that I spent in between other tasks, I don't know, maybe three to four hours, something in there.

And I take it you reviewed documents that were generated within your lab to determine whether the information on the document was accurate, correct?

That's correct.

Looking at page 2, number 17, that indicates number 17 is Mr. Simpson's reference blood vial, correct?

That's correct.

Is it your understanding that that was the reference blood sample taken by Nurse Thano Peratis at the jail hospital?

Yes, it is.

That document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference vial was given item number 17, correct?

Yes.

Before I show you these documents, let me ask you a couple questions about procedures for booking evidence into SID, or into LAPD in general.

What is a DR number?

DR number, I believe it stands for division of records, something like that. It is a case number. It's something that is assigned and follows a case from beginning to end.

Now, when is a DR number assigned in a case, generally?

Well, it's rarely involved in SID. I believe it's assigned when a detective calls up, either records or the local station, and requests the next number in line.

And that's something that they can do, basically, from any location at any time, once they start working on a case, correct?

Well, mechanically, I believe they can. I don't know what their procedures are as to what time -- at what point it's supposed to occur.

I mean, all they need to do is call up on the phone and ask for the next number that becomes the case number for that case?

Objection. Foundation.

Lay a foundation.

(BY MR. BLASIER) You're aware of the procedure where DR numbers are assigned to a case, as just indicated?

General procedures, yes.

That involves calling up and saying, give me a number; this is going to be the number for the case that I just started working on, correct?

Yes. Except for I don't know what information they need to convey when they get it.

Okay. And once they get a number, all of the evidence that's collected in a case is tied to that number; is that correct?

That's correct.

Now, once they have a DR number, if a detective collects a piece of evidence in the field that he wants to have booked, it goes in under that number, correct?

That case number, yes, the DR number.

If they have an item of evidence that he wanted to bring to SID, what's the procedure for doing that?

Well, if he wanted the item analyzed, they would book it into property division and normally request that somebody, in whatever unit is going to pick up the evidence from property and bring it in and analyze it.

And that's done all the time, isn't it?

That's a regular procedure, yes.

Now, when your criminalists are collecting and booking evidence in the field, or collecting evidence in the field, there's a certain amount of documentation that they're required to fill out as they do their job, correct?

There's documentation, yes.

And that documentation includes listing items that they collect or observe, correct?

Correct.

And writing down information about those items' location, who collected them, that sort of thing?

The "who collected them" isn't necessarily done at the scene; but, yes, a location, a description.

And items are given what are called item numbers as they are collected, correct?

Not necessarily. They're given photo numbers. The item numbers aren't assigned until after all the items are brought back to the laboratory and the booking process or the packaging process occurs.

Well, item numbers can be assigned in the field, as well, can they not?

They can be, yes.

Now, with respect to the evidence that was collected that's reflected on this chart at the Rockingham location, the item number that is listed in the left-hand side of the chart, here, 4 through 17, those were all items numbers that were assigned by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola at the Rockingham crime scene, correct?

Objection. Foundation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) You've reviewed the records that form the basis for this chart, have you not?

Yes, I have.

And that includes property records that correspond -- that have the same items that correspond to the items that are described, correct?

That's correct.

And you reviewed records that relate to the items that were picked up at Rockingham, correct?

Yes.

And let me show you what's previously been marked as Exhibit 212.

Put this on the Elmo.

Let me give you a copy of it.

Thank you.

(BY MR. BLASIER) That document is in Dennis Fung's handwriting, is it not?

Objection. Foundation.

Overruled.

Excuse me. Lay a foundation.

(BY MR. BLASIER) You are familiar with Dennis Fung's handwriting, are you not?

Not to the point if I was given a lot of different handwriting, I could pick it out.

Does that appear to be his handwriting?

It appears.

You've seen that document before, have you not?

I believe I have, yes.

Now, that document case -- that item number 17 --

Can we get that in better focus?

There you go.

--is a pair of tennis shoes, correct?

That's what it reflects, yes.

Those tennis shoes were collected, were turned over at a meeting that you had on June 14, in the morning, by Detective Lange, correct?

That's possible. I don't specifically remember when we received those.

But you remember that you received those from Detective Lange the morning after the crime scene was processed?

I believe so, yes. I don't know if I received them. They were received in the laboratory.

You were aware that Detective Lange had taken those tennis shoes home overnight, correct?

I had subsequently heard that.

Now, item number 18 on that document indicates that Mr. Simpson's reference blood was given item number 18, correct?

Yes.

And it was listed there after the tennis shoes that were turned in on the morning of the 14th, correct?

That's what this list shows, yes.

I have this --

This is a new exhibit.

Could I have a number, please?

2130.

I'm sorry. 2130?

Let me show you 2130. I'll give you a copy; maybe you can see it a little bit better.

Thanks.

Now, you recognize that document, don't you?

Yes, I do.

That's -- its title, serology item description notes, why don't you tell me what that document is for?

This is used in a lot of different instances when a criminalist in the serology unit is working on a case, where they receive the evidence prior to analyzing it, this is one of the forms that's filled out. It merely has the item number on the left-hand side, a brief description of it, and then whether it was in a sealed condition when they received it, those types of things. Those are notations and boxes toward the right-hand side. You can't see them on the screen.

It's also kind of generally used as a note pad or a place just to record notes within the serology unit.

Now, directing your attention to the bottom, that is number 18 and refers to Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct?

That's correct.

And it was being referred to by that number on, according to that document, June 14.

Can we back out on that a little, Phil?

That's correct.

(BY MR. BLASIER) That's indicated by the dates on the right, correct?

Yes. The day received is 6/14/94.

Let me give you another exhibit, which I'll number 2131.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you --

Phil, can we back out on that a little bit?

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, that is a document entitled Serology Case Typing Summary DNA Analysis, correct?

Yes, it is.

And you recognize that document, as well, do you not?

Yes, I do.

And tell us what that document is for.

Okay. When a criminalist in serology unit is doing a DNA analysis, this is the sheet in which they record their results. And normally, it is one of the sheets that's used to write the analyzed evidence report from.

Okay.

Can we zoom in on the left-hand column, lower column now.

(BY MR. BLASIER) The last entry on that form indicates number 18 as Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct?

Yes, it does.

That document is as of what date?

I believe it was started on June 14, 1994.

Is there a completion date on that?

Do you have that in front of you?

It has a day completed, which refers, I believe, to the analysis of June 17, 1994.

So as of the 17th, according to that document, Mr. Simpson's reference vial was still number 18, correct?

I don't believe that's what this says.

What does the No. 1 indicate?

The item number 18 that's on there would be the item number which the -- when the evidence was received by Mr. Yamauchi, when the analysis was started.

At some point in time, the number on Mr. Simpson's reference vial was changed from 18 to 17, was it not?

Yes, it was.

That's because had it been number 18, that would have indicated that it was booked on the morning of the 14th, after the tennis shoes, correct?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained`

BY MR. BLASIER: That was done because the records indicated, as item number 18, it was booked -- it was collected by Dennis Fung after the tennis shoes on the morning of the 14th, correct?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained.

You may ask the question.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Why was 18 changed to 17?

On this specific item, I don't know.

You have no idea?

No. Item numbers and photo numbers do regularly get changed for a variety of reasons, including simplicity of putting things in order. If you notice, also on this page is two other item numbers, I believe 107 or 109 turned out to be in the 40 range.

Those numbers refer to photo I.D. numbers, do they not?

Yes, they do.

You're talking about the first two comments that say looks like 107 and maybe 109?

Something like that, yes.

That wasn't the item number they were given; that was the photo I.D., correct?

At this point, it was the number that was indicating that item, but it was not the property number, because they are not necessarily related.

So that's why those numbers became a different number, because they were given a different item number on the property report, correct?

From the photo number, yes. That was an example I gave as to how it can change.

Now, item 18, however, was given that number in sequence after the tennis shoes, which were item 17, correct?

Objection. Foundation.

Sustained.

Lay a foundation.

(BY MR. BLASIER) We looked at the document before that showed item 17 as the tennis shoes and item 18 as the blood sample, correct?

We saw a document that had that on it, yes.

That's document number 212, correct?

It's the one we looked at earlier, yes.

All right. This is done by Dennis Fung at the time he receives the items, correct?

Objection. Foundation

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is that a document prepared in the regular course of business in your agency?

Objection. Foundation.

Overruled.

It's a plain white piece of paper that has three lines of text written on it. I don't know specifically when it was filled out by Dennis.

(BY MR. BLASIER) So now is it your testimony that you have no idea when that item number was changed to 17?

Let me mark a new exhibit next in line.

2132.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you Exhibit 2132.

Can you zoom in on that a little bit.

(BY MR. BLASIER) That's a document that's called a follow-up investigation report, correct?

Yes, it is.

And that's a document that was prepared specifically to change the item number of Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17, correct?

No, it isn't.

What is it for?

This was the form in general that is used to correct information that appeared on a previously submitted form, department form.

This particular one was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, not to change the item number on the item itself, but rather, to reflect a change of the item number on his analyzed evidence report that he prepared.

It says "change item number 18 to item number 17," correct?

On his analyzed evidence report, correct, not on a property report or anything that Mr. Fung had prepared.

And why was that necessary?

Because when Mr. Yamauchi started the analysis on these items, he was under the belief that the blood was going to be item number 18, so to have a number, follow it through, that's what he recorded all the way through.

At some point, it was determined that the whole blood would become item number 17, which became the official number for that title on the department property report. At that point, it would have been very confusing for Mr. Yamauchi's report to reflect 18, when the actual item number or property number was 17, so he put through an official change to make that correction.

Now, the date of this change was what? June 28, was it not?

This form, or the report was dated June 28, that's correct, 1994.

And it was signed by you, was it not?

Yes.

Why was it necessary to change the blood in item number 18 for item number 17?

Objection. Misstates the testimony, Your Honor.

Overruled.

I don't understand your objection.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell me whether there is any other item in these several hundred items that were collected, that were given an item number by the criminalist that was later changed?

By the criminalist or by SID?

As I mentioned earlier, there were many other items that received an initial number that eventually ended up getting changed on the property report.

Without going through all 450 or 500, I can't answer specifically if there was ones that were given an item number and then given a different item number.

To me, an item number occurs when the property is booked. Prior to that, it's some sort of reference number, be it one in order or a photo number. The item number is what appears on the property report.

Are you aware of any single document, a checklist that gives items numbers as filled out by the criminalist when they collect the evidence, where it's assigned a number and that item number was changed? Can you give me a single example?

Are we talking about this --

This case.

I have not gone through and reviewed all of the stuff in the notes. At this point, I can't remember if there was one or not.

Do you remember seeing any other follow-up investigation report like 2132 in this case, changing an item number?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I filled one out that changed because I made a typographical error, filled out a 314, which is what this report is called, making a correction to one of my reports in an item number.

Which one was that?

Had to do with, I believe, the property report I filled out, collecting items associated with the Bronco pieces taken to the laboratory.

And which item are you thinking about?

Well, in the body of the report -- if I can refer to the report, I can give you the exact numbers.

Sure.

Okay.

In the property report, I refer to item No. 306 as a hair fiber collected from the same location as 306/30. That's a typographical error. Obviously, the item that it can become couldn't have come from itself. I filled out this exact same form correcting the item, this number that appears in the description, so it reads item 306 hair fiber collected from the same location as No. 303/30.

This form is used for corrections like that.

Okay. But that was because there had already been the number 30 assigned to that; you just wrote it down correct. You had to conform what you wrote to what the item number that had already been assigned to that item, correct?

That's correct; it was a correction.

Are you aware of any instance where an item number that was assigned by a criminalist for an item that was collected at any of those crime scenes was changed, other than Mr. Simpson's reference vial?

Well, again, we're getting into a discussion of when it becomes an item number.

The item number is what's on the property report. I don't believe any of them were changed after the fact, once it made into a property report.

I know of no other ones, other than the photo I.D.s that I mentioned earlier, that got changed, again, between the description number and eventually the item number on the property report.

Well, that's the chart number 216, again, the summary chart prepared by the plaintiffs. You see on the left-hand column of that where it has LAPD item number?

Yes, I do.

No.

Point to one that is not.

All the items that were checked at Bundy were given an item number or descriptor number based on the photo numbers that were eventually changed to put them in order in a logical position on a property report. Changing numbers is not a terribly uncommon situation.

Well, the items that refer to the blood drops that were collected at Bundy, they were given photo I.D. numbers, correct?

Yes.

That's because of the order in which the photographs were taken; when they put the little cards on the ground, they give it that number, correct?

That's correct.

When evidence was started to be collected at Rockingham, Dennis Fung started numbering item numbers sequentially as he collected items, correct?

The photo numbers and eventually they made it -- they happen to match when he did the property report.

Is there a photo number for Mr. Simpson's reference vial?

I don't believe so, no.

So we're not talking about a photo I.D. number that had been changed with respect to Mr. Simpson's vial, are we?

No.

Now, on that chart, I want to direct your attention to number 84. Number 84 refers to fingernail scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

Yes, it does.

This is done as a routine procedure by the coroner, collecting scrapings from under a victim's fingernails, correct?

That's correct.

That's to determine whether there might be blood or skin from a person that was scratched, correct?

I believe that's the reason, yes.

You did serological testing on those samples, did you not?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Were you told by the plaintiffs that you weren't going to be asked any questions about any testing you did?

Objection. Hearsay, irrelevant.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, let me put on the Elmo, a picture that's previously been marked as 992.

(BY MR. BLASIER) You see that picture, Mr. Matheson?

Yes, I do.

Do you recognize that to be a picture of the blood in the vial that was drawn from Mr. Simpson's arm by Nurse Thano Peratis on the 13th of June, 1994, correct?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes, I do.

There are records, are there not, within SID, that demonstrate any time that that blood vial is opened to have blood removed, correct?

Well, when each person analyzes it, they record that the vial was open, yes.

And they actually write their initials on the label and the date, correct?

That's correct.

That's required procedure?

To mark the item, yes.

And that's so that you can at any time determine who opened the vial at any particular time, correct?

That's one of the ways, yes, to be able to check the markings that are on it.

Now, can we zoom in on the stopper.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see the blood on the stopper in that vial?

Yes, behind the glass.

Do you have any idea when this particular picture was taken?

I don't remember the date. I believe it was one of the times when representatives of the defense team were in our laboratory, looking at evidence items.

Do you know whether there are any pictures that exist of that blood vial prior to June 25 of 1994?

I'm sorry. Let me give you June 14.

Not to my knowledge, no.

So you have no way of knowing whether there was blood on the stopper in that vial as of June 13, do you?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Let me show you what's been marked as 225.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Can you tell us what that is?

That's the outside of a gray analyzed evidence envelope that we used to book either blood or urine samples in.

And can you see that closely enough to determine whether that's Mr. Simpson's reference vial envelope?

I did see the item number 17, which is the property item number for Mr. Simpson's blood. I don't know if it mentions from the bottom part his name or not, but that is the item number that was associated with that item after it was booked.

Okay.

Why don't you back that off, Phil.

(BY MR. BLASIER) That number 17 is written in red, correct?

Appears to be.

Do you have any idea when that number was put on that envelope?

No, I don't.

Okay. Now, what is the correct procedure when blood is collected with respect to how that envelope is used?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

You can take that off, Phil.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you again, 2130 serology description notes.

And I want to zoom in right there.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Can you see that entry, Mr. Matheson?

Let me give you a copy of that.

I thought I had one.

Okay.

And that entry that we've zoomed in on indicates that on June 13, approximately one milliliter was removed from Mr. Simpson's reference vial for swatching, correct.

Objection. Beyond the scope, no foundation.

Sustained.

It's their business record; they used it to formulate this chart.

I know. It's beyond the scope of their examination. You may do it on your portion of your case.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, do you have 1302 in front of you?

Which one is that one?

That's the document you prepared on the 29th of June.

Yes, I do.

Could we have page 2 please.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I believe it was your testimony that the purpose of examining evidence on the 29th was -- there were actually a number of different purposes, were there not?

Yes, there was.

And one of those was to determine whether there was biological evidence or biological material on evidence that should be shared with the defense -- from the defense desires to do testing on their own, correct?

Part of it, yeah. That's the reason for the column that says "split." Part of it was to determine whether or not we felt there was sufficient evidence to perform a split of the evidence, or to give the defense part for their own testing.

And so each item of evidence was examined to determine whether it had biological material on it, blood stains, et cetera, that might be split with the defense, correct?

No, it wasn't.

When you were examining these items, were you looking at them to see whether or not they had evidentiary value?

Generally, yes. We weren't doing an examination; we were looking at it and doing an inventory.

You looked at each item, did you not?

Yes, we did.

Let's zoom in on number 13.

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you got to number 13 --

By the way, did you fill out this form as you did your examination?

Yes, I did.

And when you got to number 13, you were in the room with Mr. Yamauchi and Michele Kestler, correct?

That's correct.

You were all looking at the items of evidence, correct?

Yes.

And number 13, pair of socks, you looked at those items, correct?

Yes. I pulled them out of the bag; that's how I determined the color of them.

Now, let's go over to the far right-hand column. Under comments, you wrote "blood search," correct?

Yes, I did.

And that's because you looked at them to see if there was any blood on them, didn't you?

No. If I had done that -- If I had performed an analysis, it would have appeared on the column 2 before that, that says "analysis performed." It doesn't appear in that column.

It does appear in the comments, indicating that is something that we needed to do.

Well, let's go to the left a little bit, Phil, and go out, Phil, and go out of it on the "analysis performed" column.

(BY MR. BLASIER) You have on the "analysis performed" column for number 12, you have PCR, correct?

At the top of the page?

Yes, I do.

You didn't perform that analysis that day, did you?

No.

But it had been performed?

Well, number 17, Mr. Simpson's blood again, you indicate RFLP. That had not been performed, had it?

It had not yet been performed, but I believe it had been submitted out for analysis and that it was in progress.

So the analysis performed was -- that column was for things that had already been done and some things that were going to be done in the future, correct?

No, I believe it was for the things that had already been done or things that were in progress.

Now, when you wrote "none obvious," you obviously examined the socks for blood, didn't you?

I brought them out, gave them the color -- Or the color description, took a general look at them. I did not examine them. It was just appearance. There was no blood obvious on those socks.

Did Ms. Kestler or Colin Yamauchi say to you, when you made that notation, that they saw any blood?

Not that I recall, no, or I would have indicated that.

And going to page -- or the page that has item number 84 on it, please. The number is 84 A and B, and C referred to nail clippings from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

84 A and B refer to nail scrapings.

Scrapings?

84 C is the nail clippings.

And you don't have any indication there about any analysis that's going to be performed, do you?

I believe I do. In the comments, I indicate possible PCR conventional for 84 A, and that carries through to the other items.

That was done, was it not?

Yes, it was.

You're not going to be through with this witness for what?

Not for a little while.

Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.