Recross-examination of Gregory Matheson

📄 Recross-examination of Gregory Matheson — Monday, November 4, 1996

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 8 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Gregory Matheson Witness excusal and recall noted ▶

Witness: Gregory Matheson
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 4, 1996 • Utterances: 18

Defense attorney Robert Blasier pressed criminalist Gregory Matheson on why trained investigators failed to notice blood on the socks when they were first collected on June 29th. Matheson acknowledged he knew the socks were dark once he pulled them out, that criminalists are trained to assess evidentiary value, and that no one reported seeing blood until August 4th — when a large stain was finally identified in the ankle area.

# 1 MR. LAMBERT:

Thank you, sir.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 2 Q:

Mr. Matheson, you were aware at the time you examined the socks on the 29th, that they were dark, weren't you?

# 3 A:

Not until I pulled them out of the bag.

# 4 Q:

Then you were aware of it, weren't you?

# 5 A:

Yes.

# 6 Q:

And you were looking at them to see what kind of evidentiary value they had, right?

# 7 A:

I was making a quick determination, yes, of what evidence value there might be.

# 8 Q:

And criminalists are trained, when they collect evidence, to look at to see whether it might have evidentiary value, correct?

# 9 A:

That's correct.

# 10 Q:

Is it your testimony that no one saw any blood on that sock until August 4?

# 11 A:

That's correct.

# 12 Q:

When it was seen on the 4th, it was a very large stain in the ankle area of one of the socks?

KEY QUOTE

# 13 A:

On the 4th, I believe at that point there was just a presumptive test done on the sock, and we didn't know the extent of staining; we just knew that there was blood present on them. The extent -- even my testing that I did in September, still didn't show the complete extent of the blood.

I did find a stain that I sampled.

# 14 Q:

It was a large stain that was on the ankle area, wasn't it, Mr. Matheson?

# 15 A:

That was one of many stains.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 Q:

It was a large stain, wasn't it?

# 17 A:

Yes.

# 18 MR. BLASIER:

That's all I have.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Matheson

That's correct.

Matheson confirms no one saw any blood on the socks until August 4th — the core of the defense's blood-planting theory.

Blasier

When it was seen on the 4th, it was a very large stain in the ankle area of one of the socks?

Blasier drives home the implausibility: a large stain went unnoticed by trained criminalists for over a month.

Matheson

That was one of many stains.

Matheson attempts to minimize the significance of the August 4th discovery by suggesting there were multiple stains — a slight retreat from his earlier framing.

Matheson

Even my testing that I did in September, still didn't show the complete extent of the blood.

Matheson tries to explain delayed detection, but this also implies substantial blood was present that went undetected through multiple examinations.

Evidence (1)

Informal

The socks examined on June 29th, with blood not reported until August 4th — large stain in ankle area

discussed, challenged

Notable Exchanges (2)

Blasier•Matheson

Blasier methodically established that Matheson (1) knew the socks were dark, (2) was assessing evidentiary value, (3) is trained to look for such value — then landed the contradiction: a large blood stain went unnoticed until August 4th.

strategic

Blasier•Matheson

Blasier asked twice whether the stain was large; Matheson first deflected ('one of many stains') then conceded 'Yes.'

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Gregory Matheson

impeachment via prior testimony / logical inconsistency

Blasier used Matheson's own admissions — that he was trained to assess evidentiary value and knew the socks were dark — to highlight the implausibility of missing a large blood stain for over a month, reinforcing the defense's blood-planting narrative.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8135 • 18 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103