Redirect examination of Gregory Matheson (part 3)

📄 Redirect examination of Gregory Matheson (part 3) — Monday, November 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\4\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-GREGOR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 8 of 57

◀ Sidebar: evidence ruling Cross-examination of Gregory Matheson ▶

Witness: Gregory Matheson
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 4, 1996 • Utterances: 143

Defense attorney Blasier cross-examines LAPD criminalist Gregory Matheson on two main fronts: first, establishing that none of the evidence collected June 13-14 was entered into the LAPD tracking system until June 16, creating a chain-of-custody gap; second, building toward an explicit tampering allegation by asking whether there was any way for blood from OJ Simpson's reference vial to end up in the victims' reference vials other than intentional tampering. Matheson conceded the computer gap and, in the proceeding's final exchange, stated someone would have to 'open the vials up and pour them together' for cross-contamination to occur.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Blasier, I'm reading the question and frankly I can't make sense out of the question because the record hasn't been edited by the reporter sufficiently that I can decipher it.

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Let me try it again.

# 3 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 4 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Matheson, on chart number 216, every item on here that was sent to Cellmark or department of justice or to the FBI was collected by criminalists working for S.I.D. and was processed through the S.I.D. division, correct?

# 5 A:

Well, they were all processed through at some point. In other words, I packaged and prepared it to be sent out. Some were analyzed, others were not.

As far as collected, a notable example would be item number 17, Mr. Simpson's whole blood, we do collect that. That was received and then booked.

But at some point, all of these other items listed on this chart were processed through our laboratory. Whether they were analyzed or not --

# 6 Q:

And indeed, everything you mentioned, are there any things that are -- went out to other labs that are not on this chart?

# 7 A:

I didn't go through to check to see if there were additional items that went out that don't appear here. I was checking the accuracy of the chart.

# 8 Q:

Isn't it accurate that everything that went out to other labs was processed through S.I.D. first?

# 9 A:

That's correct. If we submitted it to an outside laboratory, we'd prepare it and process it and present it to them.

# 10 Q:

Now, the booking process involves -- well tell me what that involves; whether an item is booked. What does that mean?

# 11 A:

Basically as it's -- you have an item. You have basically scientifically prepared it to be forwarded, whether it's a blood item that needs to be dried and then processed or another item that needs to be bindled or put on the shelf.

They're prepared -- collected, prepared, packaged, sealed within an envelope or a box or a larger container of some type. Information is placed on the outside of the package that reflects the case number, the case, what is inside of that package. It is then taken to one of the department's property rooms.

It happens that S.I.D. has a part of our division which is property facility called our evidence control unit.

So if a criminalist books something, normally it just goes into this evidence control unit or part of our property division which is located adjacent to us. If an officer collects something, normally they book it in or deliver it to a property room that's out at the location that they work in.

It's then stored at that location, if it's appropriate for it. If not, it's taken someplace else.

An example being, if a homicide detective collects a blood sample at a homicide, they'll take it to their local property room where it's temporarily stored in a freezer until one of our couriers brings it downtown to the evidence control unit alongside of S.I.D. where we have a very large freezer to properly store biological evidence.

# 12 Q:

When an item is booked, it's entered into the LAPD computer system for tracking, correct?

# 13 A:

Not when it's booked. Sometime later it is, yes.

# 14 Q:

Isn't it correct that none of the items in this case were booked until June 16?

# 15 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope.

# 16 THE COURT:

I'll allow it.

# 17 GREGORY MATHESON:

I believe that would be the first date item No. 1, I think was actually booked into the system on June 16.

# 18 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) So the computer system that LAPD has for tracking items would not show activity on any of the evidence items collected on the 13th and the 14th until the 16th, correct.

# 19 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope.

# 20 THE COURT:

I'll sustain it. I didn't hear any foundation with regard to this witness expertise on the computer.

# 21 Q:

Well, we've gone through this before, have we not, Mr. Matheson, about the computer system and how it works? You're familiar with that, aren't you?

# 22 A:

I have a general knowledge of the department's computer system and a little bit more; but still, general knowledge regarding the divisions evidence tracking system.

# 23 Q:

And you're aware that the computer system allows you at any time you can make a printout of any particular evidence item and you can show exactly where it's been from the date it was entered into the system until today, correct?

# 24 A:

Not necessarily 'cause there are two different systems. The property system records, when it's entered in and its general location, such as evidence control unit, not exactly where it is within that area. And then when it is logged out by non S.I.D. personnel, if a police officer checks something out of property or if it goes over to court, it's recorded in the department system.

# 25 Q:

And in those two Systems, none of the evidence was tracked or accounted for in those two Systems until starting on June 16, correct?

# 26 A:

Assuming the 16th is the proper date, I don't have the property report in front of me, I believe it is. Our property division would have had no record of those items until they were physically booked into it on that date.

# 27 MR. BLASIER:

We have 1025 on the board with -- can you back out a little bit.

Mr. Matheson, you testified on direct about EAP tests, correct?

# 28 (The instrument herein referred to as Printout of sample blood cells - EAP vs. DNA was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1025.)

# 29 GREGORY MATHESON:

A little bit, yes.

# 30 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) That stands for a erythro acid phosphotase?

# 31 A:

Erythrocyte acid phosphotase.

# 32 Q:

And that is a genetic marker, as you described, other than ABO typing and some of the others that you mentioned, correct?

# 33 A:

It is a genetic marker, yes. It's located on the red blood cell.

# 34 Q:

And --

# 35 THE COURT:

Excuse me. That's on the TV screen?

# 36 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry, on the screen.

# 37 THE COURT:

I just want to keep the record straight. Okay. No problem.

# 38 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, it's true, is it not, when you look at the genetic marker EAP, you're examining something that's in the red blood cells, correct?

# 39 A:

I -- probably on the surface of it. But it is associated with the red blood cell that's correct.

# 40 Q:

When you do DNA testing, you're not looking at something in the red blood cells, correct?

# 41 A:

That's correct. The red blood cells have no DNA in them.

KEY QUOTE

# 42 Q:

You're looking at two different things. Those are apples an oranges in the sense that you've done an EAP test and get a particular finding that has no relationship whatsoever to any DNA profile that might be in that sample, correct?

# 43 A:

If it is possible to totally separate the different cells within a blood sample, that's correct. If you're testing just the red blood cells like you do an EAP, then it is not correct to the DNA. That's in the white blood cell.

# 44 Q:

Now you indicated that you did testing, initial testing to determine whether you could exclude anybody, correct?

# 45 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Misstates the evidence, Your Honor.

# 46 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 47 A:

Well, the nature of serology analysis is to try and exclude, that's correct. To --

# 48 Q:

I'm sorry?

# 49 A:

To get more and more information, narrow the scope of a sample to try and exclude all the people that could not have left a sample.

# 50 Q:

And you performed testing in this case on the finger nail clippings or scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson in an effort to try an exclude, correct?

# 51 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope.

# 52 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 53 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, none of these tests, none of the tests that you talked about, including the DNA tests are tests that are used to establish unique identification, correct?

# 54 A:

That's correct. They're not like fingerprints.

# 55 Q:

When you say a fingerprint, we're talking about fingerprints from your fingers that are called dermal fingerprints?

# 56 A:

I don't know about the dermal, they're fingerprints or your fingers, that's correct.

# 57 Q:

That is one forensic technique that does allow you to identify somebody uniquely, correct?

# 58 A:

That's correct. And none of the tests in this case, other than -- well, none of serological test or DNA tests conducted in this case have the ability of establishing uniqueness, correct?

# 59 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Beyond the scope.

# 60 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 61 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Well, all of the tests that you talked about require the use of what you said is the product rule, correct; to establish what it means when you say that one person or one sample appears to be the same as another sample?

# 62 A:

Once you start looking at multiple markers, that's correct. You use the product rule, multiply them together to make the number small and smaller.

# 63 Q:

And in order to use that particular rule, there must be what's called independence between one marker and another marker, correct?

# 64 A:

That's correct.

# 65 Q:

And a good example of that, if you were trying to figure out how many people in the population had blond hair and blue eyes, if you counted up the percentage that had blond hair and multiplied it by the percentage that had blue eyes, it wouldn't work in that case, would it?

# 66 A:

That's correct. I believe there is an association between the --

# 67 Q:

The reason you can't use that formula is because there's some connection between blond hair and blue eyes?

# 68 A:

Like I said, I believe there is, yeah.

# 69 Q:

So that only works where there is absolutely no connection between one marker and the other marker?

# 70 A:

Where they're genetically independent, that's correct.

# 71 THE COURT:

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 10. Don't talk about the case; don't do form or express any opinions.

# 72 (At 12:00 p.m a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)

# 73 (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

# 74 (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

# 75 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

# 76 (Nods to Mr. Blasier.)

# 77 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you, Your Honor. GREGORY MATHESON, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BLASIER:

# 78 Q:

Mr. Matheson, let me show you a photograph that's previously been marked as 1420.

# 79 (The instrument herein referred to as Photo of the Bronco taken on August 10 of 1994 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.)

# 80 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Take a look at that, sir, and tell me if that appears to be a picture of the Bronco taken on August 10 of 1994.

# 81 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Foundation.

# 82 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 83 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. No foundation, Your Honor.

# 84 MR. BLASIER:

That's what I'm asking him for.

# 85 THE COURT:

Okay, overruled.

# 86 (Witness reviews photo.)

# 87 GREGORY MATHESON:

There are two photographs on this, the top one showing an identification photograph that the photographer takes, showing a C number, which is nothing more than a catalog number within the department that lists the date, August 10, 1994, the photographer's location of Virtelli's Towing.

On the bottom part is a photograph of a Bronco looking in from -- I guess it's a Bronco -- from the right-hand side, with a handwritten number 15 on the corner, with no other designator.

I never saw the whole vehicle. I don't know if that's that vehicle or not.

# 88 Q:

Do you recall testifying this morning about the carpeting that was removed from the Bronco?

# 89 A:

Yes, I do.

# 90 Q:

That was actually removed on the 14th of June, was it not?

# 91 A:

It's my understanding, yes.

# 92 Q:

And can you see from this picture that the carpeting in this car has already been removed over in the area of the driver's side?

# 93 A:

Yes, it appears to be.

# 94 Q:

And that's consistent with the appearance of the Bronco with the carpet having been removed as of June 14, correct?

# 95 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

# 96 THE COURT:

Sustained. This witness said he never saw a photograph of the complete vehicle at any time.

# 97 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you examined the console on September 1, it was removed from the car, correct?

# 98 A:

That's correct.

# 99 MR. BLASIER:

Can we zoom in on the console.

# 100 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Do you see any evidence of any blood whatsoever on that console?

# 101 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. No foundation. Calls for conclusion, speculation on the part of the witness.

# 102 THE COURT:

Sustained as to foundation for the photograph.

# 103 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of any photographs of the Bronco taken between June 14 and September 1 -- Strike that -- August 26, that shows blood on the console?

# 104 A:

I don't know of any, but I hadn't seen all the photographs.

# 105 Q:

Now, could you take a look at 216 that I have in front of you there.

# 106 (Witness reviews Exhibit 216.)

# 107 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, reference blood samples -- reference blood sample from a suspect, that's an extremely important piece of evidence, is it not?

# 108 A:

All the evidence that is associated with the case can be important. The reference samples are, yes.

# 109 Q:

The reference sample from -- that sample that -- everything else that's found at a crime scene might be compared to that reference sample, correct?

# 110 A:

That's correct.

# 111 Q:

If that becomes compromised in some fashion, that can affect the validity of anything that's compared to it, correct?

# 112 A:

If there's a problem with a particular reference sample, yes, it's correct. Then comparisons to that sample would be difficult; it would be a problem.

# 113 Q:

On that list there, number 59 and 60, those are also reference samples, are they not?

# 114 A:

Yes, they are.

# 115 Q:

And those are reference samples for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, correct?

# 116 A:

That's correct; they're the blood vials.

# 117 Q:

Those are the EDTA purple-type vials, as we saw with Mr. Simpson's vial, correct?

# 118 A:

That's correct.

# 119 Q:

Those are directed at the time of autopsy, are they not?

# 120 A:

Excuse me. That's my understanding, yes.

# 121 Q:

And your chart here, or the plaintiffs' chart here, indicates that the Los Angeles Police Department collected those sample on June 15, 1994?

# 122 A:

That's correct.

# 123 Q:

That accurate?

# 124 A:

It is the date that they were booked into property as those items.

# 125 Q:

Is says it was collected by LAPD. Was it?

# 126 A:

Those particular items were prepared by the coroner's office. They were collected by, I believe, one of the detectives associated with the case.

# 127 Q:

And it indicates on there that the blood was sent to Cellmark on what date?

# 128 A:

For both of these items, on June 23, 1994.

# 129 Q:

Between June 15 and June 24 of 1994, where were the victims' blood samples?

# 130 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Foundation.

# 131 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 132 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Do you know where it was?

# 133 A:

Yes.

# 134 Q:

Where?

# 135 A:

In the refrigerator located in the serology unit.

# 136 Q:

We've already discussed that Mr. Simpson's reference vial on this chart is indicated as number 17, correct?

# 137 A:

That's correct.

# 138 Q:

Is there any way for blood to get from Mr. Simpson's reference vial into the reference vials of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through any mechanism other than tampering?

KEY QUOTE

# 139 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Improper, hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 140 MR. BLASIER:

We'll tie it up.

# 141 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 142 GREGORY MATHESON:

I would say for the blood to get from one to another, somebody would have to open the vials up and pour them together or something.

KEY QUOTE

# 143 MR. BLASIER:

That's all I have.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Gregory Matheson

Our property division would have had no record of those items until they were physically booked into it on that date.

Concedes a documented chain-of-custody gap — no electronic tracking of any evidence from the crime scene for at least two days after collection.

Gregory Matheson

I would say for the blood to get from one to another, somebody would have to open the vials up and pour them together or something.

The climactic moment of the proceeding — Matheson is forced to acknowledge that cross-contamination of reference vials would require deliberate human action, i.e., tampering.

Robert Blasier

Is there any way for blood to get from Mr. Simpson's reference vial into the reference vials of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman through any mechanism other than tampering?

Blasier explicitly names tampering as the thesis, framing the entire line of questioning about reference sample integrity.

Gregory Matheson

The red blood cells have no DNA in them.

Establishes that EAP (red blood cell marker) and DNA testing are analyzing entirely different biological material, undermining any conflation of the two test results.

Evidence (5)

Plaintiffs' 216

Chart listing all evidence items sent to Cellmark, DOJ, or FBI — processed through LAPD SID

discussed; used to identify items 17 (Simpson reference blood), 59 and 60 (victims' reference blood vials)

Plaintiffs' 1025

Printout comparing EAP blood cell markers vs. DNA — displayed on courtroom screen

marked and introduced to illustrate distinction between serology and DNA testing

Defendants' 1420

Photograph of the Bronco taken August 10, 1994 at Virtelli's Towing

introduced; used to show carpeting had already been removed, consistent with June 14 removal; Matheson said he couldn't confirm it was the same vehicle

Informal

LAPD computer property tracking system and evidence control unit records

discussed; Blasier established no items were entered into either tracking system until June 16, 1994

Informal

Fingernail clippings/scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson

briefly referenced; Lambert's 'beyond the scope' objection sustained before any testimony

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Gregory Matheson

Blasier walks Matheson through the LAPD's two-tier property tracking system and gets him to confirm that no evidence from June 13-14 appeared in any computer record until June 16 — a two-day untracked window for all crime scene evidence.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Gregory Matheson

Blasier uses a blond hair/blue eyes analogy to illustrate genetic linkage, getting Matheson to agree that the product rule only applies where markers are truly independent — quietly challenging the statistical foundations of the DNA match probabilities.

methodical

Robert Blasier•Gregory Matheson•Tom Lambert

The proceeding's final exchange: Blasier asks the tampering question, Lambert objects on three grounds, Fujisaki overrules, and Matheson concedes cross-contamination would require someone to manually open and mix the vials.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Gregory Matheson

Blasier shows Matheson the August 10 Bronco photo and tries to get him to confirm the console area shows no blood; Fujisaki sustains foundation objections since Matheson never saw the full vehicle.

probing

Light Moments (1)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Judge Fujisaki interrupts mid-question to ask 'That's on the TV screen?' about Plaintiffs' 1025 — a brief procedural check that momentarily derails the EAP questioning.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ LAPD evidence handling (institutional)

chain of custody gap

Blasier establishes that all evidence collected June 13-14 — including OJ Simpson's reference blood vial — had no record in any LAPD tracking system until June 16, leaving a two-day unaccounted window.

⚔ DNA/serology statistical conclusions

methodological challenge

Blasier uses EAP vs. DNA distinction and the independence requirement of the product rule to suggest the probabilistic significance of matches may be overstated.

⚔ Reference blood sample integrity

tampering hypothesis

Blasier forces Matheson to confirm that cross-contamination of Simpson's blood into victims' reference vials could only occur through deliberate human action — laying groundwork for a planted-evidence theory.

Witness Demeanor

(Witness reviews Exhibit 216.)

(Witness reviews photo.)

Objections

10 objections (6 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8133 • 143 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103