You mean the readings that Agent Martz obtained in his unpreserved blood, there is no way that those could result from him having a normal diet in which he ingested food that contained the preservative EDTA?
No. I didn't say the result that he got isn't there. It's there on paper. How it got there is the question or what's its source.
What are you trying to infer, Dr. Rieders? Are you trying to tell us that you think he added EDTA to his own blood?
I didn't say that. You did. I said--I don't know what the source is. It could be contamination, it could be a mix up. I seriously doubt that he would add it to it. He's an honest man, not a crook. But any number of ways that this can happen.
KEY QUOTEAnd then one way that you've just mentioned was through the possible presence of EDTA in a red top tube. Is that one way you've just mentioned?
That's a possibility. He never checked it out, so it's not ruled out. So that's a possibility.
KEY QUOTEWell, Dr. Rieders, did you ever check it out? Did you ever run any tests on a red top tube to determine whether there were trace amounts of EDTA contained in it?
Doctor, you indicated--you talked a little bit about concentration with counsel. If EDTA is assumed to be present in the evidence and in the reference tube blood and you wanted to prove that the blood on the gate and the sock came from preserved blood as a scientist, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the concentration should be the same in the evidence and in the reference blood?
If they are both fresh, yes. If one has been sitting on a fence for various periods of time, wouldn't have to be the same. What I was mainly saying is that you have no clue as to what the concentration is because you never measured how much blood you have.
All right. But then you could as a scientist test that hypothesis by doing tests to quantify precisely the amount of blood so you could determine exactly whether the concentration was the same; could you not?
Now, Dr. Rieders, if you as a scientist wanted to affirmatively prove the presence of EDTA in evidence stains, you could conduct exactly that form of testing; could you not?
Well, I could conduct it. If I wanted to prove exactly or approximately, of course, one can do those tests. That's why I proposed them. They are not tests that can't be done.
And did you propose that such testing be done on the evidence in this case to counsel, Defense counsel?
All right. Dr. Rieders, you indicated that you relied on Dr. Henion's report with respect to what tissues he tested; is that correct?
Oh. Yeah. I relied on his report as to what tissues he tested, sure, because that's what he reported as having received and tested. I also relied on Dr. Lovell's letter stating what tissues he sent.
All right. And then it's your position that based on your review of that report, that he never tested the tissues taken from the 1985 autopsy; is that correct?
Would you change your opinion, Dr. Rieders, if I were to show you a videotape of autopsy tissues being delivered to the Defense toxicologist, Brian Finkle?
I didn't say that. You did. I said--I don't know what the source is. It could be contamination, it could be a mix up. I seriously doubt that he would add it to it. He's an honest man, not a crook.
That's a possibility. He never checked it out, so it's not ruled out.
Nope. He said no, it wouldn't change his opinion. Proceed.
What's that got to do with it?