All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Dr. John Gerdes is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

Dr. Gerdes, the day before yesterday you criticized the results from the console of the Bronco, items no. 30 and 31, correct?

Correct.

It is correct, is it not, that items 303, 304 and 305 came from the same general area as items 30 and 31 on the console of the Bronco, correct?

That's correct.

It is correct, is it not, that the DNA types obtained from items 303, 304 and 305, corroborate the results from 30 and 31?

That's correct.

You didn't criticize day before yesterday or yesterday morning the PCR results obtained from items 303, 304 and 305, correct?

Objection, misstates the testimony.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Did you yesterday or the day before criticize the PCR results from items 303, 304 and 305?

I did.

Incidentally, with regard to these validation strips, approximately how many did you look at, and I'm referring to not the specific results in this case, but the LAPD PCR strips?

The validation strips, how many did I look at?

Approximately?

1069.

So a little over a thousand?

A little over a thousand.

You looked at each of those individual strips?

I did.

You looked at them carefully?

Yes.

You would look at, for instance, the result reported by the Los Angeles Police Department analysts in those strips?

Yes.

You would look at each of the individual strips and you would look--well, you would look at each of the individual strips, right?

That's correct.

And you would look at each of the individual probes on each strip; is that right?

Each of the probes meaning the dot signals?

Yes.

Yes.

And you would look carefully at each of those individual dot locations?

Yes.

Because you were looking to see if there was no dot indicated, right?

Correct.

You were looking to see if there was, for instance, a bright dot on a particular probe, bright signal?

Basically only determined if I saw something as indicated on that or not. I didn't try to look at intensities.

Well, you did in fact look at intensities on each of those strips, didn't you?

No. I simply looked at whether or not there was something present there that should not--first of all, I looked at the typing result and then determined--these are on--I assume you are talking about the known reference sample or exemplars. On those particular cases I would simply look at the typing result and then determine if there was human DNA, extra human DNA that would indicate another type there and that would mean any indication of a signal, faint or dark.

Well, isn't it true that with regard to all of these strips, whether they are from a known person, an evidence sample, a proficiency test, that intensity is very important to look at?

It depends in which context.

Well, isn't it--and haven't you already described the fact that the intensity of other dots in comparison to this C dot is very important to correctly interpret results?

The C dot is important to determine if there is a minimum amount of DNA required for a typeable result, but in the presence of any indication of a mixture it no longer can be used in interpretation because the--in the presence of more than one contributor the individual that has more DNA would light up the C dot and the individual with less DNA may or may not but would also be observable.

Well, doctor, if you look at--let's take a proficiency test on a bloodstain from a sidewalk or from wherever. Isn't the intensity of the C dot very important for an analyst to look at?

In terms of determining if there is a minimum amount of that, yes.

Isn't it important to compare the intensity of the C dot to any other dots that show up where there is a reaction?

It is important in terms of determining that there is a minimum amount of DNA and whether the typeable result is greater than that if one is assured that there is a single individual.

Well, doesn't the user guide stress the importance of looking at reactions or dots and comparing their intensity to the C dot?

In terms of obtaining a typeable result from a single individual, yes.

So it is important?

In that context, yes.

How many dots or probes--in other words, how many different dots can there be on a sample if all the dots lit up?

Well, there would be the 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, the 2, 3, 4, the C dot, the 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 dot and the all but 1.3, so that is, what is it, 8?

Isn't there another dot, the 1 dot?

Yeah, excuse me, I forgot the 1 dot.

Perhaps--

Nine.

Nine dots?

Yes.

If you looked at over a thousand samples, you had to look at approximately 10,000 dots, didn't you?

Yes.

Did you look at those dots carefully?

I did.

Did you do it in any particular location?

I did it in numerous locations.

So you did it a number of different times for each sample; is that right?

I did.

So you look--would it be fair to say you looked at, what, at least 20,000 dots if you did them each more than once?

So you looked at at least 40,000 different dots?

That's correct.

Did you use a magnifying glass or anything of that nature?

No.

Did you use any special lighting of any type?

I looked under different lighting conditions.

How long would you look at each strip?

Oh, it doesn't take that long really, perhaps five or ten seconds.

Is it your testimony that you can look at a DQ-Alpha typing strip and in five to ten seconds interpret the results?

Yes.

Isn't it true that in interpreting a DQ-Alpha typing strip you have to look if there is any reactions, and if there is reactions, you have to look at them with regard to their intensity?

Again, I think I just explained that twice.

I think we did.

Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that to look at 40,000 different dots that would take weeks?

And in fact your review of those dots--of those typing strips and the validation studies actually took months, didn't it?

Well, I didn't do it at a full-time, but basically over a period of months I looked at these, yes.

Is it your testimony that all you needed was five to ten seconds to interpret each of these strips?

Or less.

Less than five to ten seconds?

It doesn't take that long.

Did you also--and you've described the fact that you were keeping track of your notes in a chart form or spread sheet or something like that?

Yes.

And you obviously would take time to do that as well, correct?

To record what I observed, yes.

And as you look at strips the second time, the third time and the fourth time, would you make changes to your chart?

Yes.

So you were compiling and recompiling and recompiling?

Yes.