Direct examination of Gregory Matheson (part 1)

📄 Direct examination of Gregory Matheson (part 1) — Monday, November 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\4\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-GREGORY-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 8 of 57

◀ Admissions: requests read and received Direct examination of Gregory Matheson (part 2) ▶

Witness: Gregory Matheson
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 4, 1996 • Utterances: 201

Tom Lambert conducts direct examination of Gregory Matheson, LAPD's Chief Forensic Chemist, covering his supervisory role in the Simpson investigation, the assignment of Collin Yamauchi to perform PCR/DQ alpha testing, a June 29 evidence inventory meeting, and his own September 1, 1994 collection of blood from the Bronco console and carpet. The testimony focuses on establishing chain of custody for key evidence items and demonstrating controlled access to the LAPD serology lab.

# 1 MR. LAMBERT:

At this point, we call Gary Matheson to the stand. GREGORY MATHESON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

# 2 THE CLERK:

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

# 3 GREGORY MATHESON:

I do.

# 4 THE CLERK:

Please be seated. And sir, if you please state and spell your name for the record.

# 5 GREGORY MATHESON:

Gregory Matheson, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, M-A-T-H-E-S-O-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 6 Q:

By whom who are you employed Mr. Matheson?

# 7 A:

By the city of Los Angeles.

# 8 Q:

And what is your occupation?

# 9 A:

My current position is Chief Forensic Chemist, Assistant Laboratory Director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles police department.

# 10 Q:

Is that part of the scientific investigation division?

# 11 A:

Yes, it is.

# 12 Q:

Were you employed on June 13, 1994?

# 13 A:

Only June 13, 1994, I was not in my current position. I was the supervisor of the serology trace and field units of the scientific investigation division.

# 14 Q:

And you've since then been promoted?

# 15 A:

Yes.

# 16 Q:

When did you first join the scientific investigation division?

# 17 A:

I was hired by the city as a criminalist in June of 1978.

# 18 Q:

And have you worked as a criminalist with the city through various positions since that time?

# 19 A:

Yes, I have.

# 20 Q:

When did you first become aware of an investigation into the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

# 21 A:

Sometime approximately about 7:45 on the morning of Monday, June 13.

# 22 Q:

Did you play any role in the work of the scientific investigation division in that investigation?

# 23 A:

Yes, I did.

# 24 Q:

What role did you play?

# 25 A:

Well, initially my role, as I mentioned earlier at this time was -- I was supervisor of the serology trace and field units within the laboratory and as supervisor of the field units in particular. I was assigned to oversee the field work, the evidence that was brought in, working a little bit of triage; determining what items would be analyzed, initially overseeing and coordinating the case.

# 26 Q:

And as part of that initial role that you played, did you assign anyone within the serology department to do any work on the investigation?

# 27 A:

Yes, I did.

# 28 Q:

And who did you assign?

# 29 A:

A criminalist by the name of Collin Yamauchi.

# 30 Q:

And when did you assign him to do that work?

# 31 A:

I believe that was the afternoon of Monday, June 13.

# 32 Q:

And what did you direct Mr. Yamauchi to initially do in the case?

# 33 A:

Well, initially he needed to get together with the criminalist that had checked the evidence out at the scene. And as a group, we went through and looked at the items to determine which would be most appropriate to analyze. He worked in the serology unit, so he was going to be dealing with the biological evidence. The initial task was to look at some of the items and see if we could exclude the parties that were associated with the case at that point.

# 34 Q:

Okay. And a decision was made to do certain test to see if parties could be excluded?

# 35 A:

That's correct.

# 36 Q:

What tests did Mr. Yamauchi do to see if parties could be excluded?

# 37 A:

Well within --

# 38 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. No foundation.

# 39 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 40 GREGORY MATHESON:

-- Serology unit. We chose to go with a type of DNA testing utilizing PCR. PCR is a preparation technique for a marker that goes by the initials of DQA or DQ alpha.

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And those are the initial tests that you did on these blood samples?

# 42 A:

Yes, it is.

# 43 Q:

Let me show you what's been marked as exhibit 216 in this case. Do you recognize that exhibit, sir?

# 44 MR. BLASIER:

May I look at that?

# 45 MR. LAMBERT:

I gave it to you.

# 46 (The instrument herein referred to as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence Disposition" was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 216.)

# 47 (Witness reviews exhibit 216.)

# 48 GREGORY MATHESON:

Yes, I do.

# 49 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And we put the first page of it up on the television set here. I don't know if you can see that very well, or you might be able to see it better with the exhibit in it.

# 50 THE COURT:

Is that the best you can do?

# 51 MR. LAMBERT:

It's a little vague. There we go.

No, we won't be on it too long.

# 52 Q:

Have you had an opportunity to review this exhibit prior to your testimony today?

# 53 A:

Yes, I have.

# 54 Q:

Would you please describe what this exhibit is?

# 55 A:

What it is, is a summary of a number of the evidence items that were collected associated with this case; listed out by item number, LAPD item number, a brief description of it, when the item was collected and then the dates that it was submitted to one of three outside agencies.

# 56 Q:

And is that summary, summarized? Does that summary summarized other reports and documents which underlie this exhibit?

# 57 A:

Yes, it does.

# 58 Q:

And what kind of reports in -- and other documents are in that group of this that this document summarizes?

# 59 A:

There are several different types of documents. They're all prepared during the course of this case.

They're S.I.D. documents that are both typed and handwritten letters of transmittal of the items to agencies, property reports, serology description, notes, variety of different types of documents.

# 60 Q:

And are these documents that are generated by the S.I.D. personnel as part of their routine business?

# 61 A:

Yes, that's correct.

# 62 Q:

And have you had an opportunity to compare the underlying documents to this summary to ensure that the summary accurately reflects the underlying documents?

# 63 A:

Yes, I do.

# 64 Q:

Does it do so?

# 65 A:

Yes. I went through each of the items, found the documents to support it and the dates and information as accurate.

# 66 MR. LAMBERT:

Your Honor, I move exhibit 216 into evidence.

# 67 MR. BLASIER:

I object on foundational grounds, subject to a motion to strike since this witness is out of order.

# 68 THE COURT:

Received as business records.

# 69 (The instrument herein described as a posterboard entitled "LAPD Evidence Disposition" was received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 216.)

# 70 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, you mentioned before that, part of your role in this investigation was to sort of supervise some of the activities. In that connection, did you participate in a meeting on June 29, 1994 in connection with this case?

# 71 A:

Yes, I did.

# 72 Q:

And who else participated in that meeting?

# 73 A:

Well, present during it was myself, criminalist Yamauchi and my supervisor, one of the assistant directors at the time, Michele Kestler.

# 74 Q:

And what was the purpose of that meeting?

# 75 A:

The purpose of it was to look at the evidence items that we currently had within S.I.D., to inventory them and determine the quantity of each of the evidence items that were there.

# 76 Q:

And at that point in time, did you have a fairly substantial number of evidence items?

# 77 A:

Yes.

# 78 Q:

Was any actual examination of the evidence done at that meeting?

# 79 A:

No. No malice was done, that's correct.

# 80 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Move to strike, nonresponsive.

# 81 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 82 Q:

(BY MS. LAMBERT) Was any testing of any of the evidence done at that meeting?

# 83 A:

No.

# 84 Q:

Like to show you -- why don't you take this off, please, Steve, and put on -- is this 1302? Like to show you exhibit 1302.

# 85 (The instrument herein referred to as notes of summary analyzed evidence was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1302.)

# 86 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Put the first page of that up.

# 87 (Mr. Foster complies.)

# 88 Q:

Do you recognize that document, sir?

# 89 A:

Yes, I do.

# 90 Q:

Is that a document that you generated during the course of the meeting?

# 91 A:

Yes. The writing on it is mine.

# 92 Q:

And what was the purpose of the document?

# 93 A:

Well, again, it was to summarize the items that we currently had in evidence.

You can see the item number on the left, a brief description of it. To determine the quantity and then either the analysis types that we expected to perform on it, what had been performed, whether or not there was enough to do a split and then just miscellaneous comments.

# 94 Q:

Like, take for example, item number 4 here and perhaps you can tell us what this item is?

# 95 A:

Well, as it's described, it's a swatch which I described as medium to dark red. One of them being about 8 millimeters squared.

# 96 Q:

If you could move it over for me, Steve. And all the way over.

# 97 (Indicating to TV screen.)

# 98 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) In the comments section here, what is it you said about item number 4?

# 99 A:

That it appeared from that one swatch, that 8 millimeter square that there would be enough for the PCR analysis that I mentioned earlier and conventional serology, but that if we went onto RFLP, that would totally consume the sample.

# 100 Q:

So your purpose in going through these various evidence items at this meeting was to make determinations as to what you could do with them in the future?

# 101 A:

Right. It was to determine how much was there, and give a quick idea, maybe a triaging of what some of the more important items are and what the -- what analysis may eventually be formed on them if it had not already been started.

# 102 MR. LAMBERT:

Let's go to the second page now, Steve?

(Mr. Foster places on view screen second page).

# 103 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you take a look now, Mr. Matheson, item number 13, what is that item?

# 104 A:

Item number 13, I've described as socks. I believe I put down here navy blue or black.

# 105 Q:

Um-hum. If you can move it over a little Steve.

# 106 (Mr. Foster complies.)

# 107 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) To the final column, what did you write in the comments section?

# 108 A:

In the comment section, I have in quotes dress socks, just another description for them as opposed to athletic or something along that line. That a blood search should be performed and also that no blood was obvious or nonobvious.

KEY QUOTE

# 109 Q:

That's what this says nonobvious?

# 110 A:

Yes.

# 111 Q:

And so you're decision at that meeting was to later have someone do a blood search?

# 112 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Leading.

# 113 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 114 GREGORY MATHESON:

That's correct.

# 115 Q:

Was there a blood search later done on the socks?

# 116 A:

Yes, there was.

# 117 Q:

And do you know whether that was done?

# 118 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Lack of foundation.

# 119 THE COURT:

Lay a foundation.

# 120 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Was that blood search later done under your direction, sir?

# 121 A:

Yes, it was.

# 122 Q:

And did you direct some particular person to do it?

# 123 A:

Yes, that's correct.

# 124 Q:

And do you know when it was done?

# 125 A:

I don't remember the exact date.

# 126 Q:

Okay. It was done -- Do you know who it was done by?

# 127 A:

Yes.

# 128 Q:

Who was it done by?

# 129 A:

Criminalist Yamauchi.

# 130 Q:

Did he report back to you after he had done the blood search?

# 131 A:

Yes, he did.

# 132 Q:

And did he tell you whether he had discovered any blood during the blood search.

# 133 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 134 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 135 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) During the time period after this meeting of June 29, 1994, and the time that you later had discussions with Collin Yamauchi about his blood search, where were the socks kept?

# 136 A:

In a box inside of the freezer which is located in the serology unit of the laboratory.

# 137 Q:

And during that time period, who had access to the evidence in the serology room.

# 138 MR. BLASIER:

Object. Lack of foundation.

# 139 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 140 A:

The laboratory has an electronic access system. That the doors are all locked all the time and if you are allowed to have access to a location or to the laboratory, you're given an electronic card of which a computer has entered into it the number on that card, who it's assigned to, where they're allowed to go within the laboratory at any particular time or day of the week.

I'm explaining this because the access changes. During normal working hours, all of the criminalists within the laboratory have access to most of the areas within the lab.

In other words, they can get into narcotics, serology, blood, all the different laboratories within the laboratory itself.

They have to have a card to have the door unlocked for them.

Off watch, the access becomes limited to a criminalist to their own unit plus our stock room and our evidence room.

So during the day, during Monday through Friday, Friday normal working hours excluding holidays, any of the criminologists that work in the laboratory have access to serology. Obviously the administrative management personnel do. There's a student working assigned to serology that also has access to it.

Off watch, it would be limited to the criminalists that are assigned to the serology unit and or management or -- and our management or administration.

# 141 Q:

Did any of the Los Angeles police department officers investigating this case have access to the socks and the -- in the serology unit during the time periods we're talking about.

# 142 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. No foundation.

# 143 THE COURT:

Overruled.

THE WTTNESS: They cannot get into any of the facilities without being accompany by an S.I.D. personnel.

# 144 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And have you reviewed the records to determine whether anyone did have any access to the socks during the period between the time you looked at them on June 29 and when Collin Yamauchi later did his search?

# 145 A:

The people that I mentioned have access to the room, would have access to the freezer. There was no indication that any were or any viewing was done on the socks during that time period.

# 146 Q:

Was there any indication that any Los Angeles police department officer had access to the socks at all during that time period?

# 147 A:

Not that I can find.

# 148 Q:

Now, let me put up another board, here. You can take that off Steve, yeah.

# 149 (Mr. Foster complies, removes item from view screen.)

# 150 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) I don't know how well you can see that, Mr. Matheson. You may have to get down to take a look at it.

# 151 (Indicating to board.)

# 152 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) My question to you, sir, were you, yourself, involved in an examination of some portions of the Bronco that was towed away from Mr. Simpson's property?

# 153 A:

Yes, I was.

# 154 Q:

And when did your examination take place?

# 155 A:

I believe it was September 1, 1994.

# 156 Q:

And where was that examination conducted?

# 157 A:

It was conducted within the serology unit of the laboratory.

# 158 Q:

Calling your attention to this exhibit, in particular to this photograph on the bottom right corner here, would you tell us what that depicts, please.

# 159 (Indicating to photo on board.)

# 160 GREGORY MATHESON:

What this photograph shows is the console unit that was taken out of the Bronco. It's sitting on an examination table that we have in the center of our serology unit. Papers underneath it to protect it from the surface itself.

As you can see, there's also numbers that are on the console indicating areas where material was removed off it or blood was removed off of it.

# 161 Q:

And did you in fact, take blood samples from these areas that are marked with the little numbers in the photograph?

# 162 A:

Yes. I collected blood from four separate areas on what would be the right hand side of the console.

# 163 Q:

Now, in collecting that blood, sir, did it appear to you that any of that blood had previously been swatched as part of a collection effort?

# 164 A:

Yes, it did.

# 165 Q:

Which portion appeared to you to have been previously swatched?

# 166 A:

It was in the area on the console here as marked 303, and I believe in the same area of 304.

# 167 Q:

So you could tell by looking at those that someone had previously wiped across the blood splatters there?

# 168 A:

That's correct. You can see where a portion of them was -- you've collected a number of samples. You can see when it's done there's like a white mark. It doesn't completely remove the blood. It's apparent that something else --

# 169 Q:

Was it apparent to you that although this blood had been checked in the past, there was sufficient left for you to do another collection?

# 170 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Leading.

# 171 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 172 GREGORY MATHESON:

Yes, there was.

# 173 Q:

And that's what you did?

# 174 A:

Yes.

# 175 Q:

Now, let's take a look at this picture while we're out here. Did you also, on that same day, collect any further blood evidence from another portion of the Bronco?

# 176 A:

Yes, I did.

# 177 Q:

And what was that from?

# 178 A:

The carpet area that had been removed from the Bronco.

# 179 Q:

Okay. This carpet area, is it -- it was sectioned out of the bottom part of the Bronco?

# 180 A:

Yes, it was cut out from the driver's floor board area.

# 181 Q:

And do you know when that was cut out?

# 182 A:

I believe it was on June 14, 1994.

# 183 Q:

Was that by Dennis Fung?

# 184 A:

Yes.

# 185 Q:

And where had that piece of carpet been after it was cut out by Dennis Fung before you did your work on September the 1st?

# 186 A:

It was also maintained in a box in the freezer of the serology unit.

# 187 Q:

So on September the 1st, did you take that out of the box, out of the freezer unit and in from your lab to do the work that you did on it?

# 188 A:

Yes.

# 189 Q:

What was it that you did precisely?

# 190 A:

I went and I removed some additional blood stain area of the fibers in the carpeting by clipping them out and placing them in a what's called a paper bindle to protect them.

You can see there are some clippings already in a bindle that's folded up, taped and marked and initialed as to where it came from.

In addition to a stained area always collect what's called a control or an unstained area of the same surface that the blood is on. So that later on in the testing, you can find out whether or not this surface itself is contributing to the result.

So what I did is collect a portion of the blood stain area here and a control area that was in a as close as possible, but visually unstained area of the carpeting.

# 191 Q:

Those things that you checked there, did you give them item number 293?

# 192 A:

Yes.

# 193 Q:

So item number 293 is in fact pieces of the carpet that you cut out that day?

# 194 A:

That's correct.

# 195 Q:

And do you know the item number of the carpet itself that was taken from -- that was cut out?

# 196 A:

Yes I believe it was 33.

# 197 Q:

And these item numbers here 303, 304, 305 and 306, those are the items numbers that you assigned to the blood that you checked off the console?

# 198 A:

Yes, it is.

# 199 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor, we're having technical difficulty with this TV. Might we break shortly to see if he can fix it.

# 200 THE COURT:

All right. Let's take ten minutes. Don't form any opinions about the case.

# 201 (Recess.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Gregory Matheson

Off watch, it would be limited to the criminalists that are assigned to the serology unit and or management or -- and our management or administration.

Establishes that access to the serology freezer where socks and Bronco carpet were stored was tightly restricted, countering any suggestion of evidence tampering by LAPD officers

Gregory Matheson

They cannot get into any of the facilities without being accompany by an S.I.D. personnel.

Direct response to the implicit defense theory that LAPD detectives could have planted or tampered with evidence in the serology unit

Gregory Matheson

In the comment section, I have in quotes dress socks, just another description for them as opposed to athletic or something along that line. That a blood search should be performed and also that no blood was obvious or nonobvious.

His own June 29 notes on the socks stated no blood was visible — relevant to later defense claims about when blood appeared on the socks

Gregory Matheson

You can see when it's done there's like a white mark. It doesn't completely remove the blood. It's apparent that something else --

Explains visible evidence of prior swatching on Bronco console areas 303-304, accounting for collection by multiple criminalists at different times

Evidence (7)

Plaintiffs' 216

Posterboard titled 'LAPD Evidence Disposition' — summary of evidence items by item number, description, collection date, and dates submitted to outside agencies

introduced and admitted as business records over foundational objection

Plaintiffs' 1302

Matheson's handwritten notes from the June 29, 1994 evidence inventory meeting — includes item numbers, descriptions, quantities, planned analysis types, and comments

introduced and displayed; used to show sock notes and evidence triage decisions

Item 13

Navy blue/black dress socks from OJ Simpson; Matheson's June 29 notes showed no visible blood and flagged for future blood search

discussed via exhibit 1302; chain of custody and access established

Item 4

Blood swatch, approximately 8mm square, medium to dark red

discussed via exhibit 1302; Matheson noted sufficient for PCR and conventional serology but RFLP would consume it entirely

Items 303, 304, 305, 306

Blood swatched from four areas on the right side of the Bronco center console, collected by Matheson on September 1, 1994

introduced via photograph on posterboard; Matheson testified areas 303-304 showed prior swatching marks

Item 293

Carpet fiber clippings (stained and control) cut by Matheson from Bronco driver's floorboard carpet (Item 33) on September 1, 1994

introduced; Matheson explained collection methodology including unstained control sample

+ 1 more

Notable Exchanges (3)

Tom Lambert•Gregory Matheson

Extended testimony on the LAPD lab's electronic card-access system — Matheson explained how access varied by time of day, day of week, and employee role, ultimately establishing that LAPD detectives could not enter the serology unit without SID escort

strategic

Robert Blasier•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Blasier objects to exhibit 216 on foundational grounds and flags that 'this witness is out of order'; Fujisaki admits it as a business record without addressing the sequencing complaint

procedural

Tom Lambert•Gregory Matheson

Matheson walks through his September 1 Bronco console examination, noting that areas 303-304 showed visible signs of prior swatching but still had sufficient blood for collection

revealing

Light Moments (2)

Hiroshi Fujisaki / Tom Lambert

TV monitor displaying exhibit 216 was blurry; Fujisaki asked 'Is that the best you can do?' Lambert responded 'It's a little vague. There we go.' followed by reassurance 'No, we won't be on it too long.'

Daniel Petrocelli

Proceedings halted mid-examination for a 10-minute recess due to TV technical difficulty: 'Might we break shortly to see if he can fix it.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ LAPD SID (institutional)

foundation challenges and implied tampering theory

Blasier's repeated foundation objections and the question about LAPD officer access to the socks signal a defense strategy of challenging whether the sock blood evidence could have been planted; Matheson's access-control testimony was the plaintiff's preemptive rebuttal

Objections

9 objections (2 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 8130 • 201 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103