All right. Back in 1991 then you wrote--may I ask you, sir, did you write a letter to the District Attorney to explain to him what you explained to us, the reason for the discrepancy in yours and Dr. Henion's findings?
Then did you write any letter to Dr. Lovell back in 1991 to explain that there was a valid acceptable scientific reason for the discrepancy in your results?
Did you contact Dr. Henion to discuss with him the discrepancy in your results back him in 1991?
Did you write him a letter back in 1991 to ask him to discuss with you the discrepancies in your results?
No. I think we were both on a program at a Pittsburgh conference subsequently and talked about it a little bit then, but that is the only time I think, other than very recently, that I talked to Jack Henion.
Now, you knew that you were to return to complete--when was that Pittsburgh conference, sir?
Okay. All right. You knew you were to return to this court to complete your testimony today, August 14; is that right, sir?
And you called him for the purpose of discussing his findings in the Sconce case; isn't that correct?
You called him to discuss what tissue he had tested in the Sconce case; isn't that correct?
You called him to get him to agree that he tested the exhumed tissues and not the autopsy tissues; isn't that correct, sir?
Did you discuss with Dr. Henion on this past Friday, August 11th, what tissues he had tested back in 1991?
And you tried to get him to say that he had tested exhumed tissue and not the autopsy tissues that you tested; isn't that correct, sir?
Did you tell Dr. Henion that you believed he had tested the exhumed tissue and not the 1985 autopsy tissue that you tested?
I didn't tell him I believed that. I told him that that is what was in his report, which I had in front of me. He didn't have his in front of him.
Isn't it true, Dr. Rieders, that he told you that his notes and his memory he recalled distinctly that he had tested 1985 autopsy tissues? Didn't he tell you that, sir?
I don't believe he told me that. He told me he thought he might have tested other tissues and he would check it out from his report, which I have here.
Did you try also--did you also ask him to sign an affidavit to the effect that he tested only the exhumed tissues and not the autopsy tissues?
No. I asked him to verify what was in his report in an affidavit, current affidavit, and to add to it also, which is in his report, that oleandrin is not a substance which is resistant to degradation by putrefaction, which he agreed. He didn't agree to write an affidavit, but he agreed that it was, as did he in his report.
Isn't it true, Dr. Rieders, that he refused to sign the affidavit because it was not true, because he did test tissues taken from the 1985 autopsy?
Absolutely not. He said he didn't want to have anything to do with you or me or anybody else in this case. He was sick and tired of it. That is what he said.
He said he had been pestered by the Prosecution from hell to breakfast. I'm quoting him.
KEY QUOTEIs that--all right. Dr. Rieders, you wanted to convince Dr. Henion that he had tested older tissues because if that is not the case, then the explanation you gave to this jury is wrong; isn't that correct?
May we have one question at a time? I did not try to persuade him anything, and so that the second part really isn't relevant to this.
Now, back in 1991, sir, you were made aware of the fact that Dr. Henion used the LC mass spectrometer. Do you recall that?
And as a matter of fact, at the preliminary hearing didn't the Defense attorney call you as to whether or not you thought the mass spectrometer could be used to test for oleandrin?
Ask him a contemporaneous question. What is his opinion about whether or not that would have been an useful scientific technique at that time on those samples, whether or not there are any advantages or disadvantages. That is the only relevance to that question.
In your opinion, sir, when you were asked at the preliminary hearing about the use of the mass spectrometer to test for oleandrin, would that have been an effective--more effective means of testing for the presence of that poison?
I don't recall that that issue was raised, but had it been raised I would have informed the Court of the fact that the--that I was unaware of any published method for determining oleandrin by gas chromatography, mass spectrometry; that probably a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry method might be more applicable. I am aware of that. I was unaware of any published method. And furthermore, I was unaware of anyone myself, certainly in the postmortem forensic toxicology community, who had such equipment at that time available. It was relatively rare.
And so, as a matter of fact, you did not believe that anyone had that equipment at that time?
No, no, I didn't say that, please. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that in the forensic postmortem toxicology communities, medical examiner's laboratories, Coroner's laboratories, I don't know about the FBI, but my colleagues weren't using LC/ms. The one case where LC/ms was used in a postmortem case, it was done by Hewlett Packard out here for somebody that I knew of, so it wasn't a tool that was generally lying around available to anyone at the time. And also, what I want to emphasize, is that I was unaware--
--of any published report of an analysis for oleandrin in tissues by either GC/ms or LC/ms.
Dr. Rieders, would you agree that someone who was familiar with the operation of that machine would know how to devise a test or perhaps would know how to devise a test that would be effective for the presence of oleandrin?
What effort did you make, sir, after hearing the questioning at the preliminary hearing, or at any time before 1991, to determine whether the ms could be used for the testing of oleandrin?
I asked a couple of my colleagues whether they had anything available that could do the job. None of them did. And that is it.
I said I asked some of my colleagues whether they had any such method for oleandrin available at the time, LC/ms, and none of them did. That is as far as I went.
And what effort did you make to determine whether or not Dr. Henion's method was an effective one, after you learned of his negative result?
Did you make any effort, sir, to send your tissues, the autopsy from 1985 tissues, to Dr. Henion for testing on the LC/ms to confirm or refute the finding that you had?
That is what I proposed before the autopsy tissues were--before the exhumation was done. I proposed it first to Harvey Giss when he came up with Henion's name. I knew Henion and I knew of the--by that time I found out that he had methodology available and I offered some of the specimens that I had. I again suggested that I think to Dr.--to Brian Finkle and to Dr. Lovell and they turned that down. They said--I was told on the telephone--
I didn't talk to the Defense. I showed them to the Defense. The Defense attorney, Diamond, came to see me, and I showed him. I had them wrapped tightly, sealed, signed and everything in the deep freeze, yes.
Wait. This is the end of this inquiry. It is completely irrelevant at this point. Move on to something else.
Dr. Rieders, in this particular case you did not do any testing on any of the evidence; is that correct?
And those tests were performed on equipment that you have never operated, correct?
Now, with respect to the finding on the gate, you indicated that you found the single parent and single daughter ion, correct?
I would have to refresh--I have to see what he had--whether he ran a chromatogram where he ran--whether that is the one where he ran all three or whether it was on the sock and where in my opinion it showed the third daughter ion as well. I don't know whether it was this one or the other one.
All right. Let me just ask you this: With respect to the single parent and single daughter ion, would you agree, sir, that there may be other compounds that are not EDTA that may have that single parent and single daughter?
When you were asked whether it could have been another compound besides oleandrin, you said it could be but you don't know what that would be; isn't that right?
I'm going to show you a copy of the report you prepared in this case. Do you have it with you, sir?
Let me ask you a couple of questions about this report, sir. You recall that you wrote this report on July 17th, 1995, correct?
Let me ask you something, Dr. Rieders: You don't have a copy of your own report in this case?
Not any more. I thought you were going to examine me on the Sconce case today, so I brought the file with me.
And you received the graphs of the tests done by Mr. Martz you indicated I think back in March of 1995?
No, I didn't donate my time. I used it effectively to learn something and so I didn't charge them for that. All right?
I think the total that we've billed so far may be around--gee, I don't really know. We billed $250.00 an hour for a chargeable forensically active work directed towards it. I think it is under $10,000.
In court? Actually I don't know whether it is the second or third day. I haven't billed any of this yet.
So when all is said and done, your billing will have been about, conservatively speaking, 15,000?
I don't know. I don't know. I will bill it by time and my record. That is all I can tell you.
Which accurately summarizes the findings--the results of your examinations of those charts and graphs, correct?
He put them in his chart. I reviewed them and came to a conclusion based on those findings, yes.
All right. Let's look at what your report says, sir. I'm going to direct your attention, this is the first page of your report, to your opinion of the test results on the back gate stain. Specifically, sir, to roman numeral iii. Your opinion in that paragraph is that you found one daughter ion, correct, and one parent ion and that is in paragraph 2?
No. That is not what I found. I described the one daughter ion in paragraph 3 that it corresponds to the daughter ion of the EDTA standard.
You said you found the one parent ion that corresponds to the EDTA standard, correct?
No, I didn't say I found anything. I said a mass spectral ion corresponding to the parent ion of the EDTA standard was present in the packet.
No. This is a description of facts that were in the packet that I got. This is not--this is not opinion. That is just a description.
It is not only how I interpreted them, but that is also what Roger Martz agreed to, that--with me, that retention time corresponded to the EDTA standard, that the mass spectral parent ion corresponded to the parent ion, n plus one of the standard, and that the one ms/ms ion that he monitored individually, the 160, also corresponded to that of the EDTA standard. These are things that he states in his--in his chromatography and his report.
All right. And so this--as to this stain, we have one parent and one daughter, but not the full daughter spectrum, correct?
It says what it says. They have it in their full daughter spectrum. This doesn't refer to it.
--does this show one daughter and one parent but not the full daughter spectrum was revealed by the graphs?
I'm sorry, that is not correct. It is not in the report. I didn't refer to the full daughter spectrum because it was such a mess, but it was still there. I had seen it.
Sir, have you reviewed the testimony you gave on direct when you were last in this courtroom?
Do you recall testifying that you found the full daughter spectrum on the gate stain?
I think I testified that in looking at the full daughter spectrum that I recognized all three ions as showing on it visibly.
I thought that is what I did. I don't know whether it was the gate or the sock, remember, I told you that, so I don't know which one it was, but on one of them I said that.
All right. Then no. 2, let's go to page 2, sir, because if according to your testimony you found a full daughter ion--the full daughter spectrum for the sock stain, it should be revealed in your report, correct.
If your finding--if your opinion of the result on the graphs generated by Agent Martz' testing was that the full daughter spectrum was revealed in the sock taken, would you not include that in your report?
The fact that I interpreted that as actually showing all three ions, I don't know whether it is important. I don't take myself that importantly. But it is a corroborative finding, yes.
Sir, with respect to the determination as to whether or not a compound is indeed one that you've identified to the exclusion of all others--
--is it not important--is it not important, sir, to find as many identifying characteristics and review them as you can to substantiate your finding?
I certainly did not. It is not--nothing is to the exclusion of all others. That is nonsense. You don't know all others, all the billions of compounds.
So you cannot say then that the substance found in the rear gate and the sock is EDTA from a preserved tube to the exclusion of all other compounds?
And looking at your report, sir, if you will, concerning the graphs generated for the analysis of the sock stain--
I didn't describe seeing. I described the presence or I state the presence of a retention time, a parent ion and a daughter ion.
Okay. Did you not put anywhere in this report that you saw the full daughter spectrum, as you testified on July 24th?
And you filed no addendum to this report to indicate that in fact you had found the full daughter spectrum, not just one daughter ion, correct?
You filed no correction or addendum to your report to reflect the fact that actually you had found the full daughter spectrum and not just one daughter ion, correct?
And you would agree, would you not, sir, that the more characteristics you can find that line up with a certain compounds to identify it, the better it is in terms of confirming your findings? Wouldn't you agree?
And so the finding of the full daughter spectrum was an important interpretation of the graphs, was it not?
Now, after you wrote your July 17th report, sir, you were informed that Agent Martz tested his own unpreserved blood and got the same single parent and single daughter ion result that he found in the gate and the sock stain, correct?
Not the full daughter spectrum, but the single parent and single daughter; isn't that correct?
It was his testimony that he did not find the second daughter in his own unpreserved blood; isn't that correct?
He said very clearly he didn't run the 132 because he didn't think it was necessary. That is the third daughter ion. So he never looked for it.
Sir, isn't it true that he testified not just that he didn't--isn't it true that he testified that his blood, unpreserved blood, gave the same parent and single daughter ion results that were found on the gate and the sock? Wasn't that his testimony, sir?
He said he had been pestered by the Prosecution from hell to breakfast. I'm quoting him.
To the exclusion of all others? I can say it, but I would be lying.
I have not said anything like that in this report, that's correct.
Let's try the Simpson case sometime today.