Dr. Gerdes, you have conceded that if in fact a signal such as in the photographs that have been shown to this jury are the result of cross-hybridization, then they are not the result of contamination, correct?

Correct.

As far as the creation of your chart and in fact there were a number of charts shown to the jury that discussed and had bars or graphs of contamination, do you recall those?

I do.

In those instances in which, for instance, there is cross-hybridization instead of contamination, those charts are biased as far as the presence of contamination in the LAPD laboratory, correct?

I think we tried to explain what the degree of bias would be and so for instance on the 1.1, that was 7.6 percent of the strips, and on the 1.3, that was 25 percent, so if it is biased we attempted to explain the bias.

In other words, the way the charts are written assumes that what might be cross-contamination is contamination?

Objection.

Argumentative. Sustained.

Do those charts reflect then and include in those graphs of contamination incidents which may are the result of cross-hybridization?

Only for the specific case of the 1.1 allele and the 1.3 allele.

Is it then the case that what may be a graph that you show 100 percent of runs contaminated, that if in fact the 1.3 and 1.1 alleles are present, then those charts overstate the contamination?

I don't believe so, because the reason I analyzed it in that manner was to look at more than one strip to attempt to find the confirmation.

Does that mean, Dr. Gerdes, when you describe the 25 percent and the 7.6 percent, that your charts may overstate the contamination at the Los Angeles Police Department by over 32 percent?

Objection, vague question.

Overruled.

Remember, those are the percentage of those specific alleles and those are only two of the six alleles, so in terms of--if I could look at my notes?

Do you need to look at your notes for some answer for a portion of this answer?

For an example, yes. If we sum the total 1.1 plus 1.3 that could possibly be DX or cross-contamination, that could be 16.5 percent of those alleles.

Dr. Gerdes, what I'm asking is when you have, say, the month of May, 1994, and you show--and I'm not trying to give an exact number for the month of May. Let's just assume you have a number, whether it is forty percent, fifty percent or sixty percent, you have a bar graph that approximates that percentage, correct?

Objection, vague as to which chart, which bar graph.

Sustained.

With regard to these graphs there is one that describes run contamination and describes contamination for May, June and July, correct?

Yes.

With regard to that particular graph--and let's assume for May there is a certain percentage of strip contamination whatever that is, all right?

Yes.

That figure, whatever that percentage is, does that include these 1.1 and 1.3 instances?

Misstates the chart.

Overruled.

The chart speaks for itself.

Overruled.

Are you talking about the strip chart or the run chart?

I'm talking about the chart that has both.

On the strip chart those would be included. On the run chart the entire date would be evaluated with one sample versus the other, so I could confirm whether or not that was contamination or not.

Dr. Gerdes, I'm not sure you can see that from there. Perhaps if you would step down.

This is 1297 if I recollect.

Yes. Thank you, your Honor.

Dr. Gerdes, with regard to this particular exhibit, is this the chart that I just questioned you about as far as demonstrating for May, June and July your opinion of contamination levels by both runs and strips?

Yes, it is.

All right, doctor. Would you take a half step back. You are shielding the court reporter. Thank you.

I'm sorry.

If I could, Dr. Gerdes, let's take June where there is a 33 percent indication of strips.

Excuse me. You are pointing to May.

I'm sorry, referring to May where there appears to be a green block that contains strip contamination or artifacts; is that correct?

That's correct.

Does that 33 percent include the 1.1 alleles?

At that point it does.

Does it include the 1.3 allele?

Yes.

The 1.1 alleles can be the result of DX contamination or artifacts?

That's correct.

The 1.3 can be the result of cross-hybridization under your testimony; is that correct?

That's true.

33 percent includes both of those?

It does.

In fact, if those are not from contamination, those overstate the percentage of contamination, don't they?

They would by less than 16 percent overall.

So it is your view that it only overstates it to a certain extent, but the chart is still correct?

If I can explain? May I explain, your Honor.

Well, the question is--

May the witness explain?

He answered the question. He can explain his answers on redirect examination.

Dr. Gerdes, my question to you is in your opinion does the 33 percent then overstate the occurrence of contamination if in fact those 1.1 and 1.3 alleles are not from contamination?

With regards to that specific strip, this specific bar, that might be overstated. That is why I did the analysis the way I did, to look to the next one over which is the run contamination, so if we can look at May 12th I can explain how I confirm whether or not these are contaminated.

Incidentally, these percentages and your inclusion of those 1.3 and 1.1's, was that also true of the 31 percent in June?

That is why it is labeled "Strip contamination and/or artifact." It is clearly labeled as that. That is what it is.

Objection, nonresponsive, your Honor.

Sustained. Ask the question again.

Dr. Gerdes, when you calculated 31 percent for the month of June, did that include the 1.1 and 1.3 alleles that may not be from contamination?

Yes.

The 17 percent reported in July, did those also include the 1.1 and 1.3 alleles that may not be contamination at all?

Yes.

Thank you, doctor. You may resume the stand.

Your Honor, I have a photograph--I think the projector is back--I would ask to be mark as People's 568.

568.

Which I have previously shown to counsel.

Proceed.

Dr. Gerdes, showing you one more photograph, does that appear to be another hybridization record photograph that you reviewed as part of your review of the strips at the LAPD?

If I could just check it?

Sure.

(Witness complies.) Yes, it does.

And that particular run was conducted--well, that reflects a certain hybridization record number?

Hybridization 101.

And do you have a Xerox copy of what is contained?

No, I have a photo.

A photo as well?

Yes.

Your Honor, with the Court's permission I would like to display this photo.

Just for purposes of identifying this particular photograph, Dr. Gerdes, what date was this run conducted?

1/14/94.

January of `94?

Correct.

The analyst was whom?

Erin Riley.

And the confirming analyst was Collin Yamauchi?

Yes.

This was one of the strips you looked at as part of your review of the LAPD DNA work?

There series of strips, yes.

What was contained on this series of strips?

The first five items are actually evidence items, then there is a standard no. 5, a negative control, and then another evidence item.

Okay. When you say the first five items were case work, that is case work but not related to this case, correct?

That's correct.

In other words, this is an example of your review of their work that included actually other criminal cases but not this one?

That's correct.

Is that why it has a number that appears to be 93 dash and a series of numbers?

That is a code number for a different case, yes.

As part of your review that type of number tells us it is case work, correct?

Correct.

Instead of like CTS or known reference sample and so forth?

Correct.

Now, in this particular instance the analyst--and there were eight strips run in this particular instance?

On this particular page, yes.

Now, if we could focus in on the written results column up to the far right, that column and the first five strips, I'm sorry, are evidence samples again; is that correct?

That's correct.

The next sample, which is in what would it be no. 6, is labeled standard no. 5?

Correct.

That would be a known blood from a known person?

Correct.

Or positive control?

It is a positive control, yes.

Below that is labeled "Neg." control?

Yes.

And is that what is referred to as a reagent blank or cloth control?

That's correct.

And then lastly, is there another case work sample?

That's correct.

Which looks like it has a number beginning with 89?

Correct.

Does that indicate the year of the case?

I believe so.

So is it the case then that the Los Angeles Police Department DNA laboratory would actually look at cases that were, for instance, several years old as part of their DNA typing?

Apparently that is true.

Now, over to the right where all the results are written, there appear to be many different alleles noted for all the samples, correct?

That's true.

As part of the review of a run an analyst wants to look at the negative control, for instance; is that right?

Correct.

And is that the type of control that an analyst would look at first?

Generally, yes.

Or if not first, very close to first?

Yes.

Because that control is very important in determining whether or not a PCR run is contaminated?

Correct.

Now, in this particular instance the analyst noted, as far as the negative control, the presence of what looked like four alleles, correct?

Yes. On the negative control, which again should have no DNA, there is a 1.2, 2, a 4 and a 1.1.

Now, if we could move up to the appropriate strip where the actual dots are noted, that would be the second strip from the bottom, Dr. Gerdes?

Correct.

We will see if we can place an arrow, just so it is clear, which strip we are referring to. That would be second from the bottom, Dr. Gerdes?

That's correct.

Is the arrow currently pointing to that particular strip right there?

Yes.

Now, that negative control should show no dots in any of the probes, correct?

And we are seeing a 1 dot?

Yes.

A 2 dot?

Yes.

A 4 dot?

Yes.

Is there a C dot?

Yes, on my photo there is.

But faint, would that be a fair description?

Yes.

Is there a 1.1 dot?

Yes.

Similarly faint?

About the same as C.

Now, the 1.2, 1.3, 4 dot, without getting into its interpretation in this particular sample, is showing a clean reaction, correct?

It is.

Is there a reaction in the 1.3 dot?

No.

And lastly, the all but 1.3, that is going to basically show a reaction if any allele is present other than the 1.3, right?

Correct.

So that is another sample that you use to interpret the results?

Correct.

Now, if we could go back to the actual result section, and just first before we do that, then this is a signal to an analyst that there is a problem with this run, correct?

Yes.

It is a clear signal, isn't it?

If we could return to the results column in the written portion and go to the far right, and that is fine, as far as zoom in or zoom out. There is the appearance of many alleles in each of these samples, correct?

That's correct.

It is fairly easy to determine that there is contamination in this run, correct?

Yes.

And in fact the analyst noted that contamination, correct?

They did.

In this particular case, yes.

And in fact they clearly were?

In this particular case, yes.

All right. Could I have just a moment, your Honor?

Dr. Gerdes, as far as the materials you received in this case, you were provided, I believe you described materials relating to DNA testing by LAPD?

Yes.

Cellmark?

Yes.

And the Department of Justice?

Yes.

And did you review all of those materials?

I did.

You were also provided, and in particular, with reports from each of those laboratories?

That's correct.

I'm referring to DNA work as well--as far as your reports?

Specifically, yes.

Were you provided any of the serological reports, that is, the results obtained by conventional serology?

No.

Were you provided bench notes relating to the DNA work?

Yes.

Were you provided all of the x-rays or autoradiographs?

The majority, yes.

Are there some you are aware of that you were not provided?

Yes.

What about the D1S80 films? They are somewhat like autoradiographs in appearance, correct?

Yes.

Were you provided those?

Yes.

Were you provided photographs, for instance, of typing strips, and I'm referring to the case work itself in this case?

Yes.

Were you provided photographs of product gels as they are called where there is an evaluation of the presence of DNA and how much?

Yes.

Were you provided photographs--well, or other--let me rephrase that. Were you provided x-rays or copies of those x-rays of what are called slot-blots that are another method of determining approximately how much DNA is present?

I have not seen the original slot-blots from either the DOJ or from Cellmark. As far as the autorad itself, I have seen Xerox copies.

So you haven't seen any of the slot-blots that quantitate?

I have seen the recorded results. I have not seen that the autorad that goes with that, other than a copy.

Does Cellmark record the actual amounts from a slot-blot or is the x-ray the data from which they interpret it and don't note it in a written document?

They don't note it.

So therefore it is correct that you have seen no reports or photographs detailing the amount of DNA that Cellmark determines from a sample?

Not directly from Cellmark.

Have you received it from some other source?

From Department of Justice.

Well, I'm referring to Cellmark?

The same item.

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear.

It was related to me through--I believe it was related to me through, umm--umm, discussions with testimony by Robin Cotton and I read those testimonies in which she specifically stated what the DNA amounts were on the items in question.

Were you provided materials about proficiency testing by all three laboratories?

Yes.

And did you review all of that material?

Yes.

Were you provided--and you've already described receiving and reviewing each of the validation DQ-Alpha strips at the Los Angeles Police Department. Did you review validation materials from the other two laboratories as well?

I did.

Did you review the accreditation materials from Cellmark Diagnostics, that is, accreditation by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors?

I have seen documents related to that, yes.

And were those documents specific to Cellmark Diagnostics?

Yes.

Were there also similar material from the Department of Justice that you received and reviewed?

I may have. I don't recall offhand seeing the specific document on that.

You have described reading some of the transcripts in this case, that is transcripts of testimony?

Umm, I read the transcripts of individuals that related to DNA. I haven't read the transcripts of the entire case.

What witness' testimony have you read the transcripts of?

Mazzola, Fung, Collin Yamauchi, Gary Sims, Renee Montgomery, Robin Cotton and I may have forgotten somebody, but basically anyone who dealt with either sample collection or DNA analysis.

That is a lot of transcripts, isn't it?

It is.

Can you approximate for us how many hours you have spent just reading those transcripts or days or weeks, whatever is easier?

Perhaps, you know, all total a week or two time.

One or two weeks to read the transcripts of each of those witnesses--all of those witnesses?

Perhaps a week or two, yes.

Have you received any videotapes for your review?

I have seen clips of videotapes, but I have never received them myself.

By "Clips" do you mean on television?

Yes, on TV or, you know, played during the course of the trial.

As opposed to a videotape that you received and watched--

I did not receive any videotapes.

Are there any other materials that you were provided with respect to this case?

I believe we covered most of them.

You reviewed all of those materials, correct?

Yes.

You made notes as a portion of your review?

Yes.

You compiled a chart?

Yes.

As far as your notes, how many notes--I mean can you state it in terms of pages how many notes you took, and I'm setting aside the chart with the raw data on it?

Most of my notes were taken during the--I had one or two pages of lab--of notes on the lab site visits. I had perhaps a page or two involved in analyzing or looking at the strips for each particular area as far as just summarizing and that is all.

You have used the term "Site visit." Site visit has a special meaning in science, doesn't it?

Well, it can.

What does it mean?

Well, it--that is what you would call, for instance, if you were applying for a grant from the NIH and they requested a site visit, that would simply mean they wanted to come and look at your lab and inspect it.

That is a fairly formalized procedure, isn't it, for an inspection of your laboratory?

Yes.

And in fact that inspection can have serious consequences to the laboratory; is that correct?

That's correct.

A site visit is performed by authorized personnel, for instance, from a government agency, right?

Correct.

Is it your view that your visits to each of the laboratories in this case were site visits?

Perhaps it is a misnomer. I visited the laboratory. I am under no authority of any accrediting agency or anything like that.

When you reviewed the results and all of this raw data, did there ever come a question in your mind about how a result was interpreted or how a procedure was in fact undertaken by the analyst?

I was provided with all of the protocols from the laboratories, so I had access to those materials.

Well, what I'm asking, is other than from the material, even if you reviewed all of those, were there any questions in your mind about how an analyst performed a particular task? Did that ever happen?

Based on all the information I have, all of those things we just discussed, no.

So from your review of the materials you had no questions whatsoever?

No, and remember, I have seen these--with the specific example of Cellmark and DOJ, I have done other cases involved in those particular laboratories, so I'm familiar with they are protocols and procedures.

And you felt that that was a sufficient familiarity so that you could review all of these materials from all of these samples and have no questions of the analysts whatsoever?

And that was in your view sufficient for you to be able to render all of your conclusions thus far in this case?

Based--yes.

One more if I might, your Honor.

Uno mas.

Protocols that you have described previously as being used in your own laboratory, do you always follow or do your technicians always follow those protocols exactly?

In any laboratory you have the protocol is followed as carefully as possible and as exactly as possible. If there is any situation that occurs where that can't be the case, then the technician is instructed to direct--to ask the director whether or not a change is--changes can be made and which changes can or can't be made.

Thank you, your Honor.