And didn't you agree, when I cross-examined you last you were here in July on this, that the results on Agent Martz' unpreserved blood were very similar to that of the gate and the sock?
I think I said the results that he obtained and from the unpreserved blood. Whether it was in fact unpreserved blood, I have no way of knowing.
When I asked you, sir, whether or not you thought he was lying about that, you said no, you had no reason to doubt that he was being honest in testing his own unpreserved blood. Do you recall that?
I don't recall it, but I would agree with it. I don't think he is lying. I think he is mistaken in one way or another.
Well, sir, so after you wrote your July 17th report, which you agree shows the single parent and single daughter ion for both the gate and the sock stain, you learned of the result of Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood test, and after that you came in to testify on July 24th, correct?
And then when you took the witness stand on July 24th you had filed no addendum changing your findings that were indicated in the report, correct?
And when you testified at that point only you told this jury that you found the full daughter spectrum on the sock taken; isn't that correct?
You testified to your opinion that you saw the full daughter spectrum on those graphs on July 24th, correct?
No, no. Wait. I saw the full daughter spectrum. It was presented to me. On it I pointed out that you could really see all three, even though poorly, but you could see it.
I pointed it out. Obviously it is my opinion. But I also left it for anyone else to form their opinion.
And Dr. Rieders, between the time that you--you testified that you found--you testified that in your interpretation and your opinion the full daughter spectrum was found on the sock on July 24th, correct?
But your report does not reveal that you found the full daughter spectrum on the sock which was written on July 17th, correct?
What testing, if any, did you conduct between July 17th and your testimony on July 24th?
Not as much in detail as I had before. I was asked things about some of them. I reviewed that. That is it.
Isn't it true, sir, that in order to overcome the very similar findings in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood to that of the gate and the sock stain, you decided to change your opinion concerning your interpretation of the graphs on the sock stain so that you could say that it was from preserved blood; isn't that correct?
KEY QUOTEWell, sir, let me ask you this: Is there a difference in science between the term "Detected" and "Identified"?
When you detect something, that means that it may be consistent with a compound, but isn't necessarily that particular compound that you are trying to--you are trying to look for?
Not necessarily. Detection can be so strong that it is at the same time a positive identification. Ordinarily in the forensic toxicologic sequence of analysis where the--what we call in forensic toxicology an acceptable--forensically acceptable quantum of proof, you do two physical chemically independent tests. The first one preferably is one that is particularly sensitive, even at the sacrifice of specificity, and you call that a detection test, and then do you a second independent one which is a corroboration or negation test, and so between the two, you have an identification as a basic requirement.
Then to boil it down, sir, if you have detection, you may or may not have the compound. If you have identification, you in fact have the compound?
You may or may not. You can't ever be sure. You go to the point of reasonable scientific certainty with the tools that you have and what you have available.
And would you agree that there is a distinction, sir, between something that is presumptive for a certain compounds and something that is identified as a certain compound? Is there a higher degree of certainty with respect to a compound that is identified than a compound that is determined to be presumptive for?
Presumptive can be as strong as identified. Any analysis that you do for a compound, if you get a result that fails to disprove its presence, is presumptively positive. If you have several different types of tests, all of them fail to rule it out by showing it could be there, then together between them we call this reasonable certainty of identification. That is how we work that. That is the mental algorithm that is standard in this community. That means you don't prove anything. You fail to disprove; that is what you do.
Then do you not agree that there is a distinction between the terms "Detected" and "Identified"? Is that your testimony?
There is an obvious difference. They are two different words and they require, in any particular case, definition.
Then Dr. Rieders, would you agree that "Identify" implies a higher degree of scientific certainty than "Detected"?
A higher degree of scientific certainty for identification, yes, but not for presence or absence.
It may be there, but it may not, and when you said "Identified," it is a higher degree of scientific certainty; isn't that true?
It still may be the compound or it may be something else. It can always be different. You have failed to disprove its presence. Every time you fail to disprove, you add another quantum to having identified it. You fail to disprove. You run a series of tests. If these tests are all positive, you have failed to rule out that compound. At one point or another you say I have done enough tests. I'm reasonably sure that is what it is, taking everything else into consideration.
All right. Doctor, would you say--let me ask you a different question. There are such things as presumptive tests, correct?
Well, then do you see any distinction between a test that is a presumptive test and a test that is confirmatory test?
All right. So when something is done on a presumptive test and comes up positive, you say you have a result that is presumptive for "X," whatever you are looking for, correct?
Then when you go on and do further testing, you will confirm the presence or rule it out, correct?
Confirm it or negate it with the next test. If do you a third test, do you again the same process. It confirms the previous one or it negates the previous results.
And wouldn't you agree, doctor, that in mass spectrometry you can only confirm a compound if you have the full daughter spectrum?
If people who were expert in the use of the tamdem mass spectrometer said that that is what you had to do, would you disagree with them?
No, that is what they have to do. That is their opinion, but it isn't--as I said before, it is not etched in concrete. It is not from Olympus.
A lot of identifications in forensic science in ms/ms are done on the basis of the parent ion and the single daughter ion. It is done everyday with people who that have instrumentation.
Then your opinion, Dr. Rieders, is that you are entitled to create your own standard for when something should be identified or not? Is that your testimony?
Is it your testimony, sir, that you feel that you can make an identification based on your own criteria?
If they are only my own criteria, then they are junk science. If they are criteria which are shared by my colleagues, then I can say yes. You know, if they have stood the test of time and of cases.
KEY QUOTEBut then it is your opinion, doctor, that you set your own standard and you determine whether or not a certain standard is correct or not?
Just because they have a different opinion? No. One debates it and when comes a point where there is proof that one is right, the other is wrong, then you change your mind.
Either I or the scientific community decides. Up until the point that there is a consensus, if people have my opinion, share my opinion, then we are a group that have one opinion; somebody else has another opinion. Doesn't mean that either one is right. Eventually is turns out that one or another one is right or perhaps both are.
With whom did you consult to determine that your standard of a single parent and single daughter ion is sufficient to say that you have identified the presence of a certain compound in a mass spectrometer?
I looked in the literature, no. 1, on ms/ms work. I have over the years many times, because we have been considering getting into it.
Scientific literature, technical literature from the ones that I looked at from Finnegan who makes the TSQ instrument that I think Dr. Martz used, then Hewlett Packard who has put out that kind of an instrument, ms/ms instrument.
And do those articles indicate that it is appropriate to identify the presence of a compound as opposed to just detect it on the presence of a single parent and single daughter ion? Is that what they say?
Oh, I suppose I could if I went back and called them up to send me copies of them.
Could you please use the microphone, Dr. Rieders. The court reporter is having a hard time.
If somebody in the scientific community disagreed and felt that your--that the standard you've enunciated for us of a single parent and single daughter ion for the purpose of identifying a compound was inappropriate and too lax, you would simply disagree with them. Is that your testimony?
Yes, I would. I mean, they are entitled to their opinion, but it is not mine. We have no proof of that.
All right. Now, you indicated that there is a difference between presumptive and confirmed, correct?
It is a semantic difference, yes, but it is an important difference, but it is semantic. It refers to the first test which no matter what it is, it is the first test. The second physical chemically independent test then corroborates or negates, so it becomes the confirming or negating test.
Let me show you the last page of your report. Now, directing your attention, sir, to the last paragraph which is labeled B, where you indicate: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." And the terminology you use in that paragraph, sir, is "Consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for"; isn't that correct?
And in none of those words do you indicate the final or confirmatory language such as "Identify"; isn't that right?
Well, in this case it is not a question of identified. When you talk about--well, yeah, I guess so. It doesn't say identify that that was it, that it was EDTA blood from the tube, because you can't say that. You can only say this is EDTA blood. Presumably because the most common source for it is a lavender-topped tube. It came from a lavender topped tube, but it doesn't mean it did in fact come in that; it could come from other sources. I don't know where it came from, in short.
And the other sources it may come from, sir--well, let me ask you this: Are you aware that there are four different types of EDTA?
There are more than four, so there are four, but there are also much more than four.
Calcium disodium EDTA is used for a lot of things, included treating lead poisons.
It is not a preservative in that it ties up metal and keeps the color of food. In fact, it doesn't keep it from rotting.
It doesn't work as a preservative. Preservative means prevents bacterial degeneration. It doesn't do that the. It is not an anti-bacterial compound.
If I were to show you, sir, an article--excuse me. A page out of the Merck index indicating that calcium disodium was in fact used as a food preservative along with the purpose of treating lead poisoning, would you change your opinion, sir?
Of course not. It is a preservative of color and flavor, but not of food as edible food. The food preservative is something which keeps food edible and this won't do it. It will be bacterially degraded just as if you didn't have it in there.
All right. Then it is your testimony that although it may not preserve food, it is a color retentive product?
Look, what it does is it ties up the metals that oxidize color and flavor. It inactivates them. That is its purpose in food.
Disodium EDTA is another one that is disodium dihydrogen EDTA which when you put it into food it usually very quickly goes to calcium or depending on what--mostly calcium.
Now, the way the anticoagulant works is that it binds up the calcium in your blood which is the clotting agent; is that right?
We have just gone through four of the forms of EDTA. Do you know which of those can be used as a food preservative, sir?
You could use any one of them because the purpose of it is to tie up iron, copper and a few other heavy metals which cause changes in color and changes in flavor, so you can use any one of them, from a technical point of view, provided the acidity or basidity of the food is properly adjusted. The trouble is that the free EDTA isn't water soluble; the sodium EDTA is.
Now, do you know whether these forms of EDTA were ever tested for the purpose of determining what the maximum tolerance would be in a normal healthy person?
You mean in food? Is that it? When you say maximum tolerance, how? Intravenous or in food or what? Vast difference.
No, sir. I asked you whether there was any testing that you know of that determined whether any of the forms of EDTA that we have just talked about, those four--
--was ever done to see what the normal level would be in an average healthy person?
And in this they determined what the level in their blood was, which was in the low parts per billion below their detection levels.
Absolutely not. That is nonsense. Whoever gave that you idea?
If they are only my own criteria, then they are junk science. If they are criteria which are shared by my colleagues, then I can say yes.
You don't prove anything. You fail to disprove; that is what you do.
Isn't it true, sir, that in order to overcome the very similar findings in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood to that of the gate and the sock stain, you decided to change your opinion concerning your interpretation of the graphs on the sock stain so that you could say that it was from preserved blood?
No, that is absolutely misleading and incorrect.