All right. Dr. Gerdes, would you resume the witness stand, please.
John Gerdes, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
All right. The record should reflect that Dr. John Gerdes is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Scheck. Good morning again, doctor.
Doctor, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may conclude your direct examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
Dr. Gerdes, just a few more questions. First, I believe we discussed yesterday in your work with transplantation and infectious diseases you mentioned that there are policies, protocol, rules with respect to maintaining the integrity of samples when they are received in the laboratory; is that correct?
Well, they are safeguards to ensure that we are analyzing the appropriate individuals in that case, and basically it simply means that every person that handles the specimen has to record that fact or document that fact so that you can follow the history of that particular specimen and know exactly where it came from and who and at what time that was handled, who handled the specimen, when it was handled, how it was transported to the laboratory and in what state did it arrive and all of the details that would be important to guarantee that that particular specimen is indeed what it is supposed to be and that there was no possible chance that that specimen might have been tampered with or in some way compromised.
Now, Dr. Gerdes, even in the transplant work, if you receive a tube of blood that a doctor says is a tube from a particular person, but it doesn't have certain kind of proper documentation, what are the rules and procedures in regard to that?
Well, according to CLIA `88, which is the Law in a Clinical Laboratory, if a specimen arrives at the laboratory without appropriate--an appropriate request form specifically stating what test is to be done and if the specimen has not been labeled with the patient's name, we cannot analyze it.
Well, you call the physician and you tell them that an error has been made and have them redraw a new specimen.
What is the practice and procedure with regard to the receipt of specimens in packaging that shows evidence of having been opened and then repackaged?
Again, that is a break in the chain of custody. That item could not be analyzed. We would inform the individuals, the parties involved and we would start over.
So in other words, the history of the handling of the sample is a lab question, a scientific issue?
Doctor, do you have an opinion about the reliability of DNA testing results on samples recovered from the Bronco console on August 26th, that is, samples 303, 304 and 305?
All right. Have you examined the results and the history of the samples 303, 304 and 305?
Oh, are you familiar with the testimony and the documentation as to what happened to the Bronco after samples were first collected on June 14th?
All right. And are you aware of what happened to the Bronco and the console, where it went, what procedures were involved in maintaining its custody until the time it was then again sampled on August 26th?
Now, do you have an opinion about the integrity and reliability of the DNA test results on the sample recovered from the Bronco console on August 26th, 303, 304 and 305?
Umm, the--those samples have obviously the--as I just described, the chain of custody aspect of those samples has been broken. We don't know what or at least we can't be assured that something or someone or a number of individuals might not have been in there. In fact, there is testimony that I have read that states that that in fact happened.
All right. Based on just the integrity of the sample handling of the Bronco, do you have any confidence in the results of those--from a scientific point of view, in the results of those tests?
Now, there was a question I forgot to ask you yesterday, and I apologies for it, concerning the charts and the data that you put together in your analysis of strips, runs and extraction controls and negative controls in the period of May through July of 1994, and the overall charts, and that is, did you include, in your analysis, the strips and two runs that were involved in this case?
Well, the purpose of that analysis was to assess the level of contamination before and after this specific incident case and so that is why I did it that way.
KEY QUOTEI have some additional questions now about RFLP results. I believe you gave us yesterday, concerning your views of the RFLP result on LAPD item 52 and--which was analyzed on the morning of June 14th by Mr. Yamauchi, correct?
All right. And you've expressed your opinion, your concerns, with respect to that RFLP result?
Now, let me ask you about some other RFLP results. Do you feel that cross-contamination could have accounted for the RFLP results consistent with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the Rockingham glove?
Did--have you looked through the amount of DNA and the paperwork on the analysis performed on the RFLP tests done on the Rockingham glove with respect to results consistent with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
All right. Do you feel--what is your opinion in terms of the issue of cross-contamination and those results?
Given the amounts of DNA in those samples do you have an opinion about whether or not cross-contamination could have accounted for those results?
Have you looked at the amounts of--have you reviewed the amounts of DNA that were used for the RFLP tests in those samples?
All right. Have you reviewed the paperwork and the procedures used by the laboratories in testing those samples?
All right. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not--what is your opinion with respect to the issue of cross-contamination in those RFLP results?
In your mind, Dr. Gerdes, does the amount of DNA that is used with respect to--that is involved in an RFLP test in the sample handling procedures that precede it have a bearing on the issue of cross-contamination and RFLP results?
All right. What is your view with respect to the RFLP test results consistent with the genotypes of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the Rockingham glove?
All right. Do you regard the analysis of--do you take the analysis of different RFLP test results separate and independently? In other words, would you evaluate the RFLP--have you evaluated separately the RFLP results in this case on each sample individually?
All right. Can I ask you now do you have--what is your view with respect to the issue of cross-contamination and the RFLP results on the Rockingham glove, those that are consistent with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
Sustained. Let me see counsel over at the side bar with the court reporter, please.
You can no longer have any scientific confidence in that.
every person that handles the specimen has to record that fact or document that fact so that you can follow the history of that particular specimen and know exactly where it came from and who and at what time that was handled, who handled the specimen, when it was handled, how it was transported to the laboratory and in what state did it arrive
if a specimen arrives at the laboratory without appropriate--an appropriate request form specifically stating what test is to be done and if the specimen has not been labeled with the patient's name, we cannot analyze it.
Your Honor, I'm confused.
the purpose of that analysis was to assess the level of contamination before and after this specific incident case and so that is why I did it that way.