Your Honor, for the hybridization number in the upper right-hand corner is 37. I don't know if the Court wants me to go back and describe the--
Dr. Gerdes, referring you to 562, this is a hybridization run conducted also in September of `93?
And in fact this is just what, four hybridization records later than the previous one?
And in particular, with regard to this sample, this is a--the fourth of five errors that you have testified to previously?
With regard to this sample, you identified an error with regard to which individual strip or sample?
And then the sample below that, would that then be also the e-cell or victim's cell portion of the same vaginal swab?
Now, off to the right of item no. 3, that is the third item down, the results are written in "1.2, 4," correct?
Incidentally, is this the same sample that was run previously in what you have described as error no. 3?
And without belaboring the point, you don't disagree with the particular types noted by the analysts, do you?
And your opinion about this particular error, would it be based on the exact same reasons that you gave with respect to the previous hybridization record?
And again just to be clear, this particular result of 1.2, 4 again is consistent with the victim in both portions?
And in fact would your answers be the same, that such an occurrence is not unexpected with a sexual assault sample in actual casework?
Dr. Gerdes, with respect to both this run and the previous error that you have described, you are not offering the opinion that these were called wrong by the analysts, are you?
You are just--you are offering the opinion that errors were committed because the analyst didn't detect what you feel should have been detected?
Have you reviewed any notes about what was observed in terms of any steps prior to typing these samples?
I've read testimony or heard testimony, read testimony, I believe, that these were observed microscopically to confirm sperm was there.
And with respect to the confirmation of sperm, does an experienced analyst always obtain a result for those sperm just because they are observed?
Is it your testimony that because sperm are observed there should be a PCR DQ-Alpha result for that sperm?
Isn't it correct that there are levels of sperm that may not be detected by the DQ-Alpha system when using the appropriate number of cycles?
There are levels below that, but if they observed sperm, they should not be at that level.
Is it your testimony that if there is sperm seen there should be a result up there?
And it is based on that testimony that you offer the opinion this was a fourth error?
Based on that, and also if you look at the time frame around this period, there is a 4 allele that is circulating through the lab which in my opinion--
Dr. Gerdes, does this strip reflect the final error that you described in your testimony yesterday?
They are from known individuals at the laboratory, so they are just presumably cleanly picked out of the person's head and then run.
S, so this would be--well, let's just start off to the far left. It is actually no. 5 as written in the far left-hand column?
Is it the case that that is a hair shaft from the named--or what appears to be the first name of a person immediately above that sample?
Okay. Now, that sample above the one that we are interested in that says "No. 27, Jerry B."--
The sample that you have offered the opinion is an error relates to the shaft itself, correct?
Hair shafts are generally considered to be substrate controls if they are at a crime scene. That is, they should not have DNA.
In other words, if a hair were sterily removed from a person's hair and maintained in an absolute sterile condition and then typed using the system, there would be no DNA result, correct?
As far as the root, the root hair--and I'm talking about one above the sample that we are interested in.
The hair shaft that you have offered the opinion is an error, is it correct that the 1.2 allele was noted by the analyst?
And is it the case that the weak 3 is noted to be approximately the same intensity as the C dot?
As far as the presence of those alleles, you don't have any--you are not rendering any conclusion that the alleles aren't present, are you?
As far as a hair shaft, isn't it correct that hair shafts in fact can have DNA on them?
If it is from a contaminant or from a crime scene. In this case it is from a contaminant and the significant part--aspect of this particular item is that the 1.2 and 2 are--the analyst is recording this according to intensity or recorded as the type with this weak 3 so that is an incorrect type.
Well, isn't it the case there shouldn't be any type on a hair shaft if it is sterily collected and sterily maintained?
Yes, but generally on reference hairs--that is why you do these reference hairs; the shafts are clean.
If somebody else plucked a hair out, had trouble plucking it out or whatever, had to deal with the hair manually, if enough of that went on, couldn't you detect the DNA of the person who pulled the hair?
It certainly is possible that in the manipulation of that item in the LAPD by the way they manipulated it, they introduced foreign DNA there.
In this particular case I've considered this an error because on reference hairs in particular occasionally you will find a small amount of DNA on the shaft. Most likely that DNA is going to be the same type as the root and the explanation for that is when you pull the hair out there may be some epithelial cells that come across from that individual that would type. But you generally do not find any DNA there, and if you do find DNA there, it should match the person that that hair came from. In this case it doesn't. There is a 1.2 that is coming from somewhere else.
Dr. Gerdes, how many cases have you consulted with a Defense attorney on that have involved hairs?
Those were hairs that came from crime scenes and it is not unusual to find either both the root and the shaft at the same type or foreign DNA's on those.
So it is your complaint and it is your opinion that that is an error because this is a hair shaft and we know who it came from?
That is not my complaint. I mean, it is an error because there is a 1.2 that doesn't make sense on a reference hair. If you look at reference hairs that are generally run in labs that use these kind of standards, if you find any DNA, it is the type of the individual. You don't find DNA from someone else there unless it is from a crime scene or it was collected somewhere, but might anticipate that to happen.
Is it your testimony, Dr. Gerdes, that an experienced DNA analyst would, if obtaining a result on a hair shaft, that that necessarily is an error if it is from a known person?
Dr. Gerdes, is it your testimony that an experience forensic analyst who obtains a result such as this on a hair shaft from a known person would make a mistake in seeing that result?
That is my testimony based on the fact that this should be a 2, 3 hair because this is a reference sample.
Dr. Gerdes, there shouldn't be anything on it unless it was collected and kept in a sterile fashion, correct?
This is--this is a typing error because of the fact that the introduction of a contaminant which creates the wrong dot intensities of the 1.2, 2.
No, they are there, but they are there because of introduced contamination.
KEY QUOTEThe five errors that you have discussed in your testimony for the last hour perhaps, in your opinion those are all errors by the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory?
KEY QUOTEYou are not offering the opinion that these were called wrong by the analysts, are you?
No, they are there, but they are there because of introduced contamination.
There is a 1.2 that is coming from somewhere else.
The five errors that you have discussed in your testimony for the last hour perhaps, in your opinion those are all errors by the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory?